/v/ - Video Games

How the fuck are you supposed to finish a game of this in multiplayer? Stellaris has been my first 4X game and I'm 4 days of 8 hour sessions into it, with no resolution in sight.

This is like tabletop campaign levels of commitment. You'd have to have a set time where everyone's ready to play together at the same time weekly for a year.

>>14011251

Are you playing on normal speed?

>>14011259

I'm still learning the game, so I fast forward when I'm waiting and pause when I've got a bunch of stuff that suddenly needs putting in order. But I spend most of my time at normal speed.

>>14009962

Does an AI or form of automation handle any of the tasks and functions in Aurora 4X? I ask because if I have to manage the flight plans (takeoff, landing, oberth maneuvers, adjustments, etc.) of every single fucking ship and every single fucking mining operation and every single fucking piece of cargo in what is supposedly going to be an interstellar empire where every goddamn asteroid is modeled, then how the fuck is anyone supposed to play it?

>>14011264

Also, I'm playing with Steam workshop content that makes fortress worlds viable. My first 4 games ended to some chucklefuck on the other side of the galaxy deciding my existence is an affront and rolling an unstoppable murderblob through my systems unprovoked. Combat really seems to come down to who can spam the most units fastest, with mild consideration given to the rock/paper/scissors of energy/kinetic/missile vs shield/armor/point defense.

>>14009962

>What is Distant Worlds Universe

>What is Aurora 4x

>>14011251

>Stellaris has been my first 4X game

How old are you? And if you're legitimately getting upset by the amount of commitment required in a Paradox abortion just abandon the 4x genre now.

>>14011533

Nearing 30. I only recently dipped my toes into the genre, though. As for commitment, I don't mind at all. But once it's multiplayer, a whole host of new logistical problems arise. I can't see anyone I know signing up for a full game start to finish of this, even though I would personally enjoy it.

What would you consider a good 4X game, and what is wrong with Stellaris in specific?

>>14009962

Fuck you buddy, Endless Space 2 is good.

Also, for any Aurura fags vid related details everything about what to expect in the C# update. This guy is also bro-tier, look at some of his other videos.

>>14011277

You control military ships. Civilian ships are controlled by the AI, although you can pay civvies to do things for you. You can put military ships into fleets. You do not have to manage flight plans, simply give the fleet orders to 'move to waypoint x' or 'move to x star' or 'survey all of x in a b and c systems', etc. Watch a couple tutorial videos, you don't seem to have a very good fundamental grasp on the game.

>>14011551

>What would you consider a good 4X game, and what is wrong with Stellaris in specific?

These questions are answered by the same thing; mechanics. Stellaris is a shallow pre-beginner 4x game, with the bare minimum of management, complete and total lack of depth mechanics-wise, along with uncomplex uninvolved military expansion. I can't really give you bullet points, but for an example look at Hoi3 (although not space it works) or either of the two games I listed in my other post. The intrinsic differences will become obvious fast.

>>14011551

>and what is wrong with Stellaris in specific?

there are some things wrong with it, but mostly its just the boring feeling after you have already set in a game and explored most things

the rest is pretty much regular autismo hatred towards games

most people will play these single, but for mp (if you have friendos) you can setup a smaller map, quicker evolution and etc

>>14011597

>Stellaris is a shallow pre-beginner 4x game, with the bare minimum of management, complete and total lack of depth mechanics-wise, along with uncomplex uninvolved military expansion.

>I can't really give you bullet points, but for an example look at Hoi3 (although not space it works) or either of the two games I listed in my other post. The intrinsic differences will become obvious fast.

You're trying to compare 4x with grand strategy, they are different game and even genre altogether, same could be said for civ or any technical 4x,

and even DW and aurora, even though really 4x, are the sole one games that have more management depth, evident by the fact they are for spreadsheet autismos

>>14011654

>requires Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player

>best

>>14011642

>You're trying to compare 4x with grand strategy

They have the same basic foundation & military progress

> are the sole one games that have more management depth [than Stellaris]

>DW a spreadsheet

You don't need to say anything more, you've already humiliated yourself ten times better then I could even imagine.

>>14011661

wait how.

>>14009962

>Why are there no good space 4X games being made anymore?

Probably because other genres are more profitable at the moment.

>The last good one was GalCiv2

That was ages ago. I did enjoy it even if the combat was bland.

>Endless Space sucks ass

I only played 2. I thought it was somewhat interesting but the crap combat made me drop it pretty quickly.

>Stellaris is even worse

I hate/love Stellaris. Everything surrounding the gameplay is amazing. Most of the gameplay itself feels uninspired. I still don't understand why sectors exist. Combat is much too straightforwards with all the interesting bits happening in the ship designer. There's no such thing as logistics so everyone just moves with one great doomstack. Strategic options are limited. The political side feels underdeveloped. Space defenses are useless.

Paradox is planning a big update which supposedly fixes many of these issues, but they way they're going about it as seen in the dev blogs gives me little hope..

>>14011371

Combat in this game is kind of stupid at the moment. They are going to release a 2.0 update soon that revamps it to move it away from the currently riveting meta of sticking all of your ships in as large of a fleet as possible and hurling it at the enemy indiscriminately, hoping that his gigantic furball isn't larger than yours. They're also going to remove the frankly retarded tech penalty from having more Pops. We all know the Romans and Greeks made their greatest philosophic, scientific and engineering discoveries when they were just a few dinky villages, right?

>>14011264

You should basically play on Fast all of the time at least, unless you're trying to watch a battle unfold or something. Especially towards the beginning, there just isn't any reason to sit around waiting for your ships to put put about.

The devs of this game have some weird as fuck design principles if you read their dev blog.

>we don't want a single ship class to be able to fill every role (which is why we still aren't allowing you to change your ship AI script to whatever you want) even though all you need to do to counter an all-corvette fleet is spam ships with small gun mounts

>we don't want pure tech to dominate the winning strategies for this game, but we added starbases so you don't need colonies and we kept the tech penalty for having more planets controlled in

>we designed this entire war demands system but the AI still treats every war like it's WWI and commits anything and everything to annihilating you, even if you just wanted to destroy one frontier outpost

This game is so close to being a pretty good space empire version of Dwarf Fortress.

>>14011682

>I hate/love Stellaris

That describes my feelings exactly. Hopefully the 2.0 update will make the game a lot more endurable.

>I still don't understand why sectors exist.

Sectors is literally the best feature of the game. You enjoy clicking through 10 planets and rearranging all the fucking tiles? Good God, fuck that. I'm glad I can just set one of my lackeys to do it.

>>14011697

i bet that's just for the launcher promos and the shitty intro.

>>14011728

It may just be that I'm autistic, but I don't trust the sector AI to properly develop my planets. If your read the Paradox forums it's full of people complaining about the sector AI as well, to the point that Paradox just let players manage planets anyway (pretty much admitting that their AI isn't worth a damn). At this point, sectors may as well not exist. Which is a shame, because I liked the idea of having sector governors with their own agendas and stuff.

>>14011697

There's absolutely no way to enforce that. WMP does not have a proprietary file format that no other player can run. I also seriously doubt that it's possible to have a game that will only run on a certain browser. Oh sure, I've seen websites that are like that, but that's because the website is in a format that can only be read by IE; so it's possible that you can only DOWNLOAD it from a site accessible through IE, but after that the game should run on anything.

>Anymore

Wut? This was never a fast genre and the majority of games always grow ripe(r) quite some time after the release.

I recommend the X games and Sins of a Solar Empire Rebellion, not really classic style 4X games I guess but they both work really well in their respective spin on it

>>14011752

With modern video cards being measured in teraflops there's no excuse to have bad AI in a 4x game.

>>14011597

Does C# even have a release date yet?

>>14011804

>Soon™

>>14009962

GalCiv2 was a disappointment. There was no reason to play it over MOO2 as it was every way inferior. None of the 4x projects seem to be able to figure out combat.

>>14011752

I haven't looked too closely, but the way I think about it is if the AI develops planets right then and there instead of waiting for my dumb ass to remember to do it it's good. I never have too many issues when I look at the income readouts on the sector screen.

>>14011597

I'm glad they're finally nerfing missiles. There was practically no point to using anything else unless you wanted to save ammo after crippling enemy ships.

>>14011904

Yeah, honestly there's not a single change or addition that I find objectionable. Although he is kinda admittedly slow, competent devs are a rarity nowadays.

>>14011752

Stellaris' AI in general's just fucking worthless and easy to cheese. It's why I never play it without an AI mod that drastically changes it. Good luck playing a Fanatical Purifier in vanilla since as soon as you purge even one pop the entire galaxy will go to war with you. Hopefully 2.0 will make the combat much more enjoyable rather than a complete slog of who's doomstacks beats the other and so far from what I've seen it's turning out to be good. Not a big fan of the FTL changes but it was needed.

>>14012080

>Not a big fan of the FTL changes but it was needed.

I felt like they could have kept the strategic choice of 3 FTL systems in while balancing them so it wasn't retarded. I was partial to Wormhole myself, but the fact that Warp drives can just jump directly in the middle of your fucking system is complete bullshit, in relation. They also very disingenuously described Wormholes as "faster," it takes the same amount of fucking time to jump and I have to basically analyze the AI's traffic patterns over several jumps if I want to intercept an enemy fleet because they've already left the system by the time I get there.

>>14011709

They don't know what the fuck they are doing. They're removing all FTL methods except Hyperlane because Hyperlane-only is "more tactical," nevermind you could always optionally set the only available FTL mode to hyperlane since the buggy start.

>>14012113

As a follow-up, I feel that if they made it so that Wormhole stations allow you to jump to any point on the edge of the system (instead of wherever the fuck the game feels like) it would eliminate most of the issues I have with trying to put-put my ships over to the enemy fleet before they can skeedadle. Remove the ability Warp drives seem to have (I've only played Wormhole so far) where they jump directly INSIDE OF YOUR STAR and it sounds like a good build to test, but I guess they wanted to go for the easy route. At least Hyperspace allows you to strategize around the lanes.

>>14012125

Their reasoning is that the Hyperlanes are fixed and clearly visible, so they allow you to strategize by positioning your defenses in advance instead of seeing a fleet and going "oh shit oh shit." As I mentioned though, there are several ways to balance that without having to resort to forcing everyone to use the same system. It would be better if you could reposition the Hyperlanes every once in a while.

I also don't understand the complete and utter lack of intelligence gathering on enemy forces in this game (unless you go to war and move your science ships in their territory, I guess). It makes almost every war a complete gamble based off of colonies owned unless you sucker the enemy empire into giving you their star charts and sensor data right before starting.

>>14011654

that one was too autistic for me. I fucked up some fuel designed and all my ships just randomly flew around trying to refuel

>>14011744

>>14011769

Distant World uses IE for ingame wiki. WMP is used to play intro movie so you can circumvent the need to have it installed by simply disabling intro movie. However, it's still devs incompetence to use a fucking IE and WMP in the current year.

>>14012179

>in the current year

Maybe if the current year was 2010. I do, however, agree that it's very stupid.

>>14011654

Best ground combat in any space 4x hands down guaranteed.

Master of Orion ? I heard it's bland, but ok as a game.

>>14012179

>DWU devs

>incompetent

Neg, freebirth filth.

>>14021085

the new one isn't that bad. it is bland though. and was unfinished when I played it

>>14021087

Anon, you're drunk. This isn't the Battletech thread.

FreeOrion is being made right now!

>>14021079

>drop a million troops

>win

what

Sword of the Stars, the first one, is pretty good despite the devs being huge fags. Endless space is ok as well. The new sins of a solar empire is also pretty good after most of the bugs got patched out.

For the same reason they stopped making tactical shooters a la R6/GR/SWAT.

It's too hard for the masses of brain-dead consumers. The target audience is too small, niché genres like these are not profitable.

>>14027937

>4x

<niche

Nah. The existence & popularity of Civilization proves that wrong, but you are right in that the braindead consumers keep any good 4x games from being made

>>14011682

>space defenses are useless

I picked up a mod on Steam Workshop for that, actually. It's an all-purpose improvement mod for your Space Stations, which adds a bunch of new modules (like 4 of which directly upgrade its combat ability), increases their level cap to 10, and lets you customize their loadout as though they were any other ship.

I had the usual asshole AI show up and try to doomblob my empire early game, but I'd spent significant time and resources on my orbital Death Stars. The blob hit some periphery planets and took out their Outposts, then got to my core worlds, stared at a zero-G Maginot Line for about five minutes, and then offered me peace.

It was a pleasant change from having to early game flotilla spam just to not get Zerg rushed. It's called "CC's Spaceports and Forts" if you wanna look into it. It has a bunch of cool other non-combat modules too. Improved Solar Panels, Towed Asteroid Mining, Fleet Academy (permanent buffs to ships built there), Commercial Port (% increase in minerals), Crew Lodging (strike craft stationed on spaceport get buffs), Orbital Research Platform, etc.

>stellaris

The thing I hated the most about its combat is how it treats each class of ship. A battleship isn't supposed to akin to 8 gunships stuck together with glue. It's supposed to have enough mass,armor, turrets and emplacements to shrug off a fleet that's unsupported by a capital class vessel (with the exception of torpedo boat spam). Instead, before the rebalancing, having 100% evasion corvettes was the meta and even after the rebalancing battleships are at most support vessels instead of siege vessels or linebreakers that they're supposed to be.

>made this thread and didn't get any replies

>close tab and forget about it

>see it in catalog with 50 replies

Well shit.

>>14011570

That's not space you triple nigger.

>>14011589

Did 2 improve on the original a lot? Because I haven't played 2. With how bad 1 was, I kinda of just automatically dismissed it. 1 was literally just an inferior reskin of Sword of the Stars.

>>14011533

>>14011654

Isn't Distant Worlds grand strategy, not 4X? Either way it fucking sucks. Seriously why do people like this? It feels like a job and everything in it is tedious.

AND HOW CAN ANYONE TOLERATE THE FACT THAT IT USES FUCKING INTERNET EXPLORER FOR THE UI? HOW DID THE DEVS EVEN MANAGE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT?

>>14011682

>I only played 2. I thought it was somewhat interesting but the crap combat made me drop it pretty quickly.

Please tell me they aren't still using the card system.

And yeah everything you said about Stellaris is why I say it's shit. It COULD be a good game, it has lots of potential, but it's just so shallow and bare bones.

>>14032648

>Doesn't even know what genre Distant Worlds is

>Still somehow knows enough to call it tedious

It is the definition of 4x. Go back to playing Sins or whatever my dude.

>>14040252

>Still somehow knows enough to call it tedious

Yes, playing the game tends to give you enough knowledge on whether it's fun or not.

>sins

>4x

Just because devs incorrectly use a genre name doesn't make it actually that genre. Next you're going to tell me all those shitty randomized indie games are indeed roguelikes.

>>14042379

What do you think the point was of telling you to go play Sins? I think you're legitimately retarded, duderino. And why would you call the game a grand strategy if you've played it before? Or if you even had a vague notion of it? You either have no clue what the term means or you're being purposely confrontation about something you've never played, for no reason at all.

>>14042629

>And why would you call the game a grand strategy if you've played it before?

Because it's a grand strategy, not a 4x, duderino. Maybe if you weren't a complete dumbass you'd understand that.

>>14042722

>dumbass

Heh, you're one to talk, aren't you. Okay buddy, I'm going to give you a specific set of instructions. First thing, go to your search engine, and type in "4x genre", then, open a new tab and type in "grand strategy wargame". Click on the wikipedia links and read the descriptions. Afterwards, come back to me with your apology. If you're too retarded &/or lazy to do that, I'll give you a short explanation: Grand strategy specifically focuses on theaters of war and requires the abstraction of military units + a focus on realism. Please only post again when your IQ is out of the double digits.

>>14043312

>i can't make an argument so i'll hope someone else has already made it for me

Funny that you're telling me to get my info from wikipedia when wikipedia says

>Distant Worlds is a pausable real-time, space grand strategy wargame developed by Code Force and published by Matrix Games.[2]

And everything else you said just further proves that Distant Worlds is a grand strategy. A shitty one at that.

distant worlds universe is good and sequel is on the way

>>14011654

Looks cool

Does it have population mechanics or is the autism devoted to other areas?

>>14048267

the autism is devoted to EVERY area