Truth be told I didn't go goblin mode in the editing department for the latest video for a number of reasons, and I didn't want dedicated viewers to think I was skimping out, which is why I'm posting this in the community tab (and now the actual video): - I was accepted for an internship which has changed the trajectory of my graduation path since I am taking an extra semester in order to graduate, so readjusting has been awkward - I am looking to replace my graphics card and speed up the rendering process. Adding too much in terms of cutouts and clips on top of the preexisting video feed usually adds more time and is harder on my sweatshop worker of a computer - Stellaris is my second most played game with 1000+ hours but I don't get any views and I still make videos on it anyway lmao WE REACHED 500 VIDEOS!
The leader cap is an OK idea, but it really should have ways to scale up in the mid to late game, cause it looks very odd how my billions peoples empire somehow can only have 10 leaders.
Yea I love it as a role play idea like that you have less leaders but are more individual. But yea from a gameplay point we need a lot more at least later game.
It is the same thing that has happened since the game was released. A small minority of players is loud on the internet. Like when I read people saying I hire 15 scientists at the start that boggles my mind because... wow you must suck if you need to use every cheese and spam. You made a choice, that I know must pay for sheesh
@@soul1d I think that's an insane number but by the late game it's weird that you get punished for having a ton of fleets with admirals for example. Early game a limit of 5-10 makes sense. Late game, not so much.
The leader cap is a good example of an interesting idea with a terrible implementation. This basically forces you to choose between what kind of leaders you want. If you go for a 3-scientist start (as we all should), you are forced to dismiss them later on when you want to hire new admirals/governors/generals (either to fill your council or because you need that extra boost). There are many options to fix this, in my opinion : 1/ Add dedicated leaders limits instead Self-explanatory. Instead of having a generalist limit for every leader, add a smaller limit for each leader type, and over it, add a general limit. For example, instead of having a limit of 6 leaders, you can have 2 of each leader kind, plus 1/2 generalist positions. 2/ Prevent inactive leaders from counting in the limit. If you train a leader up to a high level, but need rapidly to take another leader but can't afford to go over the cap, you are forced to dismiss them. By not counting them in the leader cap, it would allow you to keep the leaders you took your time to max out in your backpocket. 3/ (last but not least) Increase the leader cap at higher levels. While it's true that leaders are powerful, they're far too limited in numbers, especially in the end game.
Or Just put a slider like you want leader cap yes or no? Do you want the normal cap or more Leaders like 5 more 10 ecc. Honestly a slider like these Will make everyone Happy so everyone can create the game how they want and not like paradox think you should play.
The starting count is perfect I would say, but yes it needs to go up quicker than it does. Perhaps make a base number + 1 for every planet you colonize.
The leader cap is aggravating as the number doesn't grow with your empire size. You went over the leader limit ICON GLOWING RED. When we have been conditioned that red= you are doing poorly correct it.
I reacted badly to the leader cap at first, but it does present a challenge and forces you to make choices rather than just acquiring leaders at will. I appreciate it, now. It forces you to rethink strategies.
True! I think Stellaris has one of the strongest early games now out of the Paradox titles, which is helped by its sandbox nature. If they can hone in on the bugs and tackle a few complaints, it will go down as one of the most impactful 4X games
I'm not a fan of the leader cap tbh but my biggest gripe is how gestalts have been power crept really hard by this expansion. As a gestalt player I feel like I have to work way more to be equivalent to normal empires. Machines less so than hives.
I feel like the last bone they threw hive minds was the Tree of Life origin but maybe Progenitor is decent 🤷🏻♂️ They could use a content pack, just like synthetic dawn
Play a progenitor hive, and you will know how unbalanced the game actually has become. The full, immortal council which gains xp at an accelerated rate results in insane buffs machines could only hope for and things normie bios cant even fathom. Year 30 and you want 90% ship cost reduction? You could TRY to roll well as a void dweller, or simply hire a couple leaders as a progenitor hive and hand pick the buffs you need. Are you spilt trying to determine wheter you want councillor or leader specific buyfs? Not as a gestalt, because your council is fixed and as a result your leaders more efficient as they cant roll non council traits. And the council trait that gives councilor xp boost along with unity boost can be stacked to making a unity rush trivial. All in all, a DLC that on paper hurts gestalts for “no destiny traits” ultimately buffs the already strongest version of each.
The main issues with leader cap, as I see it are: 1. Generals are useless compared to other leaders, thus with the introduction of both leader cap and planetary surrender mechanic completely fall out and there's no reason to ever recruit them, unless you have a council position that requires a general to occupy it, which immediately lowers the value of said council position and the civic associated with it. 2. Governors not providing their bonuses to the entire sector (aside from basic bonuses from governor's level) goes absolutely against the whole "limited leaders" concept. Governors are only slightly more powerful, at the expense of you needing a whole lot of them to achieve THE SAME LEVEL of effects you had pre-update. 3. Empires that have militarist civics that prevent them from employing scientists as council members are at a huge disadvantage compared to empires that can do it, since they effectively can field a lot more scientists, and those are too valuable compared to literally every other leader type in the game, especially early on. Effectively it reinforces the idea that you need to be tech rushing to stay competitive, since if you go for military/economy bonuses you will be out-competed almost every time by empires that are tech focused, since they can field more scientists. 4. You are pretty much required to adopt traditions related to leaders and council, since the benefits are too great to pass up. This drives more niche civics further down into obscurity. Basically the same issue as with generals, only now it's traditions. The fact that Transcendent Learning went from being completely useless never ever picked perk to being one of the first one you pick now tells you how much of an imbalance leader cap introduces into the game. 5. It all can be fixed in a matter of minutes, since the repeatable tech for increasing leader cap is already in the gamefiles, just commented out. That seems very strange to me, since introducing it into the game will both not bring a huge imbalance, since repeatable techs can only be accessed way past the point any reasonable MP session goes, and it will satisfy pretty much everyone complaining about it. 6. All the people making an ass of themselves by saying "limitations breed creativity". I get it, you want to seem smart, but making a surface level observation and then mindlessly applying a banal quote to it doesn't achieve that. Another thing: you will be content with both leader cap being there and not, why would you just actively and publicly go against other people's wishes then? Well aside from the recent trend of trying to feel good about yourself by conforming to which ever the official position enforced on you is.
I just got this one and did not know the legendarily are so limited. This should of either been like 20 or just randomly generated. Stellaris has always felt very random and what was set in stone was always flavored with some randomness to how you get it or it ends.
What is really strange to me, is that they didn't do anything with envoys - Which makes me believe that they will not do anything with the abysmal espionage/diplomacy for a long LONG time - and that is frankly VERY dissappointing.
I don’t really know what they would do with envoys though. Give them perks that speed up influence generation? They would have to separate them into diplomats and spymasters, similar to what CK3 does. Otherwise, their traits would clash
I would say the leader cap is dumb, except there is now an easy way to dump all your leader xp gain for 0 (yes 0) empire size. Given how powerful leaders are, I think it's a fair trade-off that takes some investment to get running.
If they wanted to add character building, they should have kept everything the same(scientists, admirals, generals, governors) but add basically a council with a hard cap - 1 supreme leader, 1 head of admiralty, 1 head of invasion armies, 1 head of science department, 1 head of ministry of foreign affairs etc. It's ok to have only 10 of council members as long it is actually the council and other lower level leaders still exist
Add 5 heroes, something that MoO2 had 25 years ago but more of 5 ofc, limit leaders to totally arbitrary number, plus bunch of new bugs as always - all these incredible features for "unusually low" $15.
The whole game is ruined now and when I roll back to the previous update the mouse no longer interfaces with the game. I have to control alt delete. Time for a new game after 4000 hours of fun. Sad times.
As a new noob player. 2 weeks ago ( and hyped and thinking of , what first expansions i should buy ; utopia i know ^^ ) we played a lot multiplayer and i thought : why is this cap so bad ? i could understand it for scientist and the leaders. But not for gouverment ^^. I think, if they space this out. it would feel a little better ? But thats all from my new noob perspective ^^. good vid ;). very enjoyable and explained a lot of the critics . greetings
Most DLC are plagged by the patch that comes along with them, and more often than not, they introduce new problems and nasty bugs, so people review those bugs, and those reviews remain long after they are no longer part of the game. A quick read of Overlords, or the CK2 conclave DLC's reviews will show you as much. Likewise, T&T from CK3 received a ton of praise, while many reviews are mentioning features from the patch that came along with it instead of the actual content of the DLC, so other than those truly bad expansions without any real content, that came out without significant patches or new features/bugs, like northern lords, RC, friends & foes and fate of iberia, the bad review scores are usually a reflection of Paradox' bad quality control, and not the actual content in their expansions. I think if you'd ask any fans of their old titles, CK2, EU4, HoI4, and Stellaris, most, if not all, would say that the DLCs are all so good that they wouldn't consider the game to be playable, or even "finished" without them, so they are all a must.
persoanlly, I'm still waiting fpersonally, ever since the first contact dlc, my spying/espionage tab has been broken plus I almost always play gestalts so I'm super disapointed in not being able to use modt of the content for the new DLC.
For role playing having more general/ scientists/ admirals would make sense - I’m not a fan of the leader cap there needs to be more to balance it out - also off base a little we need more envoys at the start 2x envoys is stupid especially when you play a bigger map and ai empire and 1st contact goes mental
Maps could use an entire update. We finally received more map modes, but when was the last time scaling for larger maps was actually addressed? Distant Stars?
The leader cap remaining so small in comparison to empire size might make sense in a more Authoritarian empire, but it makes zero sense for other ethics.
Not sure if anyone has said it yet but in interviews the game director said they started production about the same time as First Contact and it is a different team that made it. Paradox usually goes on summer vacations and don't do active development as I understand it so it would have had to release now or August. Also theres a report that the studio is getting consolidated, basically shutting down because they are moving everything to Stockholm as I understand it.
So in the same interview (I think it was with Aspec) they said the Custodian are actually get rotated through all of their developers. There isn't a set team and they want to give everyone a chance to be on it.
What makes you think it was a short development period? Did you watch any interviews with devs? It was developed in parallel with the First contact for a year.
With the actual size of the expansion and the team working on both First Contact and Paragons at the same time, it wouldn’t surprise me if the team was split fairly thin. I just want to know whether the decision to release the expansion was because of the anniversary, or something else
@@4Xtraordinaire The expansion was released early because Paradox Arctic (people that made galactic paragons and First Contact was made by Paradox Green which is the main stellaris team) was gonna be closed down and the anniversary just happened to be closeby so i guess they set the release date there. Honestly sad that this happened, they we're clearly still doing something with the expansion until they were suddenly gonna get layed off cause of sh1tty higher ups.
@@4Xtraordinaire Paradox Arctic developed and led the Galactic Paragons DLC, and had very little to do with First Contact. But people from Arctic worked on Aquatics, Toxoids and Overlord.
@@secretpassenger8589 I still wonder how much help they received from the main team for this update, and whether or not they are working on something separate themselves
One of the worst phrases of all time was "the customer is always right" Most of the time the customer doesnt even know what it wants. In a gaming cummunity there is always that false sesation that everyone wants the same, but the truth is thaat the desire from every individual inside the community is always different from each other...and most of the time there is no middleground
A few more leaders would be nice...even a couple from the start would be a bit more lenient than the leader cap is now. Scientists THAT hard to come by in a post-FTL society? Really?!
Both of the past two DLC were developed side by side, atleast for a time, so some of the bugs I've heard of, people are speculating that because the team that worked on this DLC didnt work on stellaris only, that the devs werent aware of every little feature and its interaction with their update. People react badly to the leader cap (I dont mind it, it litterally has not changed how I play) because they are coping that they can't be everywhere at once.
Having between 8 and 12 leaders is absolutely stupid. By the end I have 10 to 15 fleets, plus their respective invasion armies, I NEED GENERALES AND ADMIRALS. Not to forget the number of generals needed for my colonies and the scientists to explore and research. It's just stupid.
I'd personally rate the expansion an easy 8/10. Sure, it's not perfect, but the leader rework has given it so much personality. I now feel a much more personal connection to my empire.
They just need to make the ai better and for fuck sake fix the middle/end game lag. I have to stop expanding and just purge and blow up planets to keep the game speed tolerable
I unironically had to upgrade my GPU because of how poorly it was running - CK3 is a breeze in comparison which is astounding after they added numerous events happening simultaneously for the expansion that just dropped. Allowing there to be 2 separate origins that introduce 2 new opponents on top of the already existing 9+ for small or bigger maps was insane
I think the leader cap is good. Having the freedom to do anything whenever you want does not create interesting game play. What makes games into games is the fact that we are restricted by rules and can seek to exploit them to gain an advantage. The leader cap introduces interesting decision making. Whereas before you would simply fire a leader that gained a bad trait willy nilly, now you have to actually think before doing so, because leader levels are harder to earn and are more impactful, but also you might not want to keep a leader with a bad trait in one of your limited leader slots. It's tricky. And that's good, because it makes your decisions more meaningful.
It's a massive overhaul, it was clearly in the works in the background for at least an expansion or two, if not most of a year. Anyone who thinks that a major overhaul of a system that touches and interacts with literally every single aspect of the game happened in a month or two is a joke.
You say that, but Imperator: Rome achieved an impressive amount in the short time that it had before cancellation. If they did work on something several months before, they would likely be doing so with a reduced team because Arctic was also working on the last DLC
Don't have the DLC but the free patch was a downgrade to the game. I keep ending up in wars where the ais have more admirals than i have leader cap and yet they are all higher level than my ruler mush less any of my admirals(if i'm lucky enough to afford 2). Governors now only matter to the planet their on meaning i now need EVEN MORE of them to do what i could pre update which the cap wont let me do. And finally scientist. Good bye tech focusing is my only real complaint with the update for them. TLDR the free patch made the vase game worse to try and sell the DLC
The last five dlcs were underwhelming, they tweaked a few ui and introduced new characters while going full circle with the leader cap, the penalties aren't that bad and isn't going to stop someone from adding more leaders, 🤷♂️ that's just me though I'm sure everyone loves reading the same scripts and mosh pit space battles
Overlord has to have been one of the worst DLCs released for this series, namely from all the lazy coding with regards to vassal agreement costs that do not take into account similarities and differences between the two empire lets alone the worst part in that subjugation terms being a policy instead of a war goal.
Paradox has always had an issue with there being a very vocal minority of the fanbase which disproportionately affects discourse. Not to say that they are always wrong, but they tend to be very abrasive
I dont think this update affected much honestly. You can still use 2 year old unity builds to get 1k+ science and a 20k fleet at year 20. Nothing game changing at all, just some extra fluff.
"STFU and take my money" Was my personal and humble answer to this "question". I just have to wait until mods are all upgraded and then it will be perfect. But now, with just 91 mods in, it runs perfectly. 😌👌 I love this game.
Mediocre DLC with update tailored specifically to sell it, that, in order to do so, added horrible changes to core gameplay. I gotta love that everyone who has a problem with this update is "whining and seething". Also no, leader cap does nothing to prevent lag, that's a problem with the sheer amount of pops in late game that have to be accounted for each tick, due to the game not being built to support so many of them.
Sad to hear about the leader cap not significantly reducing lag, but I still think that the community reaction is overblown. Could it have been bigger, had a longer dev time, and a justifiably larger price tag? Fuck yes. But I will stand firm in my opinion that this is one of the better expansions modern Stellaris has seen
@@4Xtraordinaire Yeah, i don't know. I didn't get into Stellaris to coddle leaders, let alone have them predetermined. It's not CK or HoI. I just think all of this was completely unneded. Leaders system wasn't perfect by any means, but at least it didn't feel so artificial. It's like Paradox ran out of ideas what to change again, so they force a mechanic onto us, one that, at least imo, isn't fun to interact with, especially if you're an RP player. Not to mention that even IF you like this system, it's crippled without the DLC, exactly like espionage.
@@KnightspaceORG Paradox has been taking a more RP-focused approach with some of their later releases like CK3, so it doesn't surprise me that this bled over into games like Stellaris. I don't know if this is because of sales, or whether they're trying to appeal to a different audience.
@@4Xtraordinaire I'm not entirely sure how predetermined characters and direct trait picking can even be considered an RP change. It looks to serve minmaxers, rather than anyone else.
@@KnightspaceORG I've had paragon Kai-sha, because she kinda fit my empire roleplay wise. She was in my empire for quite some time and then randomly died, which I only learned because I've got a notification about empty council position. I mean sure I could put her in one of my armies and let her randomly die on a planet invasion but it all just doesn't feel really roleplay-ish. Even the funerals, which came with the dlc, feel more like a way to actually help minmaxers, because different types of funerals give you different bonuses. And I feel like whenever you play as a regular empire, or (especially) empire with lower lifespan, these funeral events popup so often you eventually start to see them more as a spam, rather than "opportunity to roleplay more". I've so far tried playing with this dlc as necrophages and even with longer lifespan its hard to really get attached to leaders, who in the end for most of the species even look the same, with slightly different colour palette.
Truth be told I didn't go goblin mode in the editing department for the latest video for a number of reasons, and I didn't want dedicated viewers to think I was skimping out, which is why I'm posting this in the community tab (and now the actual video):
- I was accepted for an internship which has changed the trajectory of my graduation path since I am taking an extra semester in order to graduate, so readjusting has been awkward
- I am looking to replace my graphics card and speed up the rendering process. Adding too much in terms of cutouts and clips on top of the preexisting video feed usually adds more time and is harder on my sweatshop worker of a computer
- Stellaris is my second most played game with 1000+ hours but I don't get any views and I still make videos on it anyway lmao
WE REACHED 500 VIDEOS!
The leader cap is an OK idea, but it really should have ways to scale up in the mid to late game, cause it looks very odd how my billions peoples empire somehow can only have 10 leaders.
I think the shortened release window resulted in a lack of QA testing
Yea I love it as a role play idea like that you have less leaders but are more individual. But yea from a gameplay point we need a lot more at least later game.
It is the same thing that has happened since the game was released. A small minority of players is loud on the internet. Like when I read people saying I hire 15 scientists at the start that boggles my mind because... wow you must suck if you need to use every cheese and spam. You made a choice, that I know must pay for sheesh
@@4Xtraordinaire and PDX tests mostly MP sessions anyway, which are bound to not last long.
@@soul1d I think that's an insane number but by the late game it's weird that you get punished for having a ton of fleets with admirals for example. Early game a limit of 5-10 makes sense. Late game, not so much.
The leader cap is a good example of an interesting idea with a terrible implementation.
This basically forces you to choose between what kind of leaders you want. If you go for a 3-scientist start (as we all should), you are forced to dismiss them later on when you want to hire new admirals/governors/generals (either to fill your council or because you need that extra boost).
There are many options to fix this, in my opinion :
1/ Add dedicated leaders limits instead
Self-explanatory. Instead of having a generalist limit for every leader, add a smaller limit for each leader type, and over it, add a general limit. For example, instead of having a limit of 6 leaders, you can have 2 of each leader kind, plus 1/2 generalist positions.
2/ Prevent inactive leaders from counting in the limit.
If you train a leader up to a high level, but need rapidly to take another leader but can't afford to go over the cap, you are forced to dismiss them. By not counting them in the leader cap, it would allow you to keep the leaders you took your time to max out in your backpocket.
3/ (last but not least)
Increase the leader cap at higher levels. While it's true that leaders are powerful, they're far too limited in numbers, especially in the end game.
Or Just put a slider like you want leader cap yes or no? Do you want the normal cap or more Leaders like 5 more 10 ecc. Honestly a slider like these Will make everyone Happy so everyone can create the game how they want and not like paradox think you should play.
@@alessiobarty True, I agree there should be some sort of legacy option selection for disabling leader cap.
The starting count is perfect I would say, but yes it needs to go up quicker than it does. Perhaps make a base number + 1 for every planet you colonize.
The leader cap is aggravating as the number doesn't grow with your empire size. You went over the leader limit ICON GLOWING RED. When we have been conditioned that red= you are doing poorly correct it.
I reacted badly to the leader cap at first, but it does present a challenge and forces you to make choices rather than just acquiring leaders at will. I appreciate it, now. It forces you to rethink strategies.
True! I think Stellaris has one of the strongest early games now out of the Paradox titles, which is helped by its sandbox nature. If they can hone in on the bugs and tackle a few complaints, it will go down as one of the most impactful 4X games
Transcendent learning is kind of necessary now unless you took leader cap civics
@@chazdoit I feel like the meta shifting drastically each patch has become a Stellaris staple at this point
I'm not a fan of the leader cap tbh but my biggest gripe is how gestalts have been power crept really hard by this expansion. As a gestalt player I feel like I have to work way more to be equivalent to normal empires. Machines less so than hives.
I feel like the last bone they threw hive minds was the Tree of Life origin but maybe Progenitor is decent 🤷🏻♂️
They could use a content pack, just like synthetic dawn
Play a progenitor hive, and you will know how unbalanced the game actually has become. The full, immortal council which gains xp at an accelerated rate results in insane buffs machines could only hope for and things normie bios cant even fathom. Year 30 and you want 90% ship cost reduction? You could TRY to roll well as a void dweller, or simply hire a couple leaders as a progenitor hive and hand pick the buffs you need. Are you spilt trying to determine wheter you want councillor or leader specific buyfs? Not as a gestalt, because your council is fixed and as a result your leaders more efficient as they cant roll non council traits. And the council trait that gives councilor xp boost along with unity boost can be stacked to making a unity rush trivial. All in all, a DLC that on paper hurts gestalts for “no destiny traits” ultimately buffs the already strongest version of each.
The main issues with leader cap, as I see it are:
1. Generals are useless compared to other leaders, thus with the introduction of both leader cap and planetary surrender mechanic completely fall out and there's no reason to ever recruit them, unless you have a council position that requires a general to occupy it, which immediately lowers the value of said council position and the civic associated with it.
2. Governors not providing their bonuses to the entire sector (aside from basic bonuses from governor's level) goes absolutely against the whole "limited leaders" concept. Governors are only slightly more powerful, at the expense of you needing a whole lot of them to achieve THE SAME LEVEL of effects you had pre-update.
3. Empires that have militarist civics that prevent them from employing scientists as council members are at a huge disadvantage compared to empires that can do it, since they effectively can field a lot more scientists, and those are too valuable compared to literally every other leader type in the game, especially early on. Effectively it reinforces the idea that you need to be tech rushing to stay competitive, since if you go for military/economy bonuses you will be out-competed almost every time by empires that are tech focused, since they can field more scientists.
4. You are pretty much required to adopt traditions related to leaders and council, since the benefits are too great to pass up. This drives more niche civics further down into obscurity. Basically the same issue as with generals, only now it's traditions. The fact that Transcendent Learning went from being completely useless never ever picked perk to being one of the first one you pick now tells you how much of an imbalance leader cap introduces into the game.
5. It all can be fixed in a matter of minutes, since the repeatable tech for increasing leader cap is already in the gamefiles, just commented out. That seems very strange to me, since introducing it into the game will both not bring a huge imbalance, since repeatable techs can only be accessed way past the point any reasonable MP session goes, and it will satisfy pretty much everyone complaining about it.
6. All the people making an ass of themselves by saying "limitations breed creativity". I get it, you want to seem smart, but making a surface level observation and then mindlessly applying a banal quote to it doesn't achieve that. Another thing: you will be content with both leader cap being there and not, why would you just actively and publicly go against other people's wishes then? Well aside from the recent trend of trying to feel good about yourself by conforming to which ever the official position enforced on you is.
I just got this one and did not know the legendarily are so limited. This should of either been like 20 or just randomly generated. Stellaris has always felt very random and what was set in stone was always flavored with some randomness to how you get it or it ends.
What is really strange to me, is that they didn't do anything with envoys - Which makes me believe that they will not do anything with the abysmal espionage/diplomacy for a long LONG time - and that is frankly VERY dissappointing.
I don’t really know what they would do with envoys though. Give them perks that speed up influence generation? They would have to separate them into diplomats and spymasters, similar to what CK3 does. Otherwise, their traits would clash
I have a feeling that an "Internal Politics" DLC is on the way and we'll get a thorough (over)work on the envoys sooner rather than later.
@@RealCodreX I hope so, ATM they really have no real use. If Stellaris dropped everything that's dependent on envoys I would hardly notice.
I would say the leader cap is dumb, except there is now an easy way to dump all your leader xp gain for 0 (yes 0) empire size. Given how powerful leaders are, I think it's a fair trade-off that takes some investment to get running.
If they wanted to add character building, they should have kept everything the same(scientists, admirals, generals, governors) but add basically a council with a hard cap - 1 supreme leader, 1 head of admiralty, 1 head of invasion armies, 1 head of science department, 1 head of ministry of foreign affairs etc. It's ok to have only 10 of council members as long it is actually the council and other lower level leaders still exist
Add 5 heroes, something that MoO2 had 25 years ago but more of 5 ofc, limit leaders to totally arbitrary number, plus bunch of new bugs as always - all these incredible features for "unusually low" $15.
I like being able to stack bonuses to get corvettes for 17 alloys and defence platforms for 40, guess that'll be nerfed soon.
Remember what they took from us
The whole game is ruined now and when I roll back to the previous update the mouse no longer interfaces with the game. I have to control alt delete. Time for a new game after 4000 hours of fun. Sad times.
Paradox Arctic studio is being closed, which is likely why they had to rush out the DLC before everyone got the boot or were relocated to Stockholm.
As a new noob player. 2 weeks ago ( and hyped and thinking of , what first expansions i should buy ; utopia i know ^^ ) we played a lot multiplayer and i thought : why is this cap so bad ?
i could understand it for scientist and the leaders. But not for gouverment ^^.
I think, if they space this out. it would feel a little better ?
But thats all from my new noob perspective ^^.
good vid ;). very enjoyable and explained a lot of the critics . greetings
Most DLC are plagged by the patch that comes along with them, and more often than not, they introduce new problems and nasty bugs, so people review those bugs, and those reviews remain long after they are no longer part of the game.
A quick read of Overlords, or the CK2 conclave DLC's reviews will show you as much.
Likewise, T&T from CK3 received a ton of praise, while many reviews are mentioning features from the patch that came along with it instead of the actual content of the DLC, so other than those truly bad expansions without any real content, that came out without significant patches or new features/bugs, like northern lords, RC, friends & foes and fate of iberia, the bad review scores are usually a reflection of Paradox' bad quality control, and not the actual content in their expansions.
I think if you'd ask any fans of their old titles, CK2, EU4, HoI4, and Stellaris, most, if not all, would say that the DLCs are all so good that they wouldn't consider the game to be playable, or even "finished" without them, so they are all a must.
persoanlly, I'm still waiting fpersonally, ever since the first contact dlc, my spying/espionage tab has been broken plus I almost always play gestalts so I'm super disapointed in not being able to use modt of the content for the new DLC.
For role playing having more general/ scientists/ admirals would make sense - I’m not a fan of the leader cap there needs to be more to balance it out - also off base a little we need more envoys at the start 2x envoys is stupid especially when you play a bigger map and ai empire and 1st contact goes mental
Maps could use an entire update. We finally received more map modes, but when was the last time scaling for larger maps was actually addressed? Distant Stars?
The leader cap remaining so small in comparison to empire size might make sense in a more Authoritarian empire, but it makes zero sense for other ethics.
Honestly, this is the first time I've actually cared leaders, both as a mechanic, and as individual people. And I've been playing since v1.0
Out of all of the Paradox titles, Stellaris has had one of the most radical transformations from base game to present day
My one complaint about this expansion is how easy the exploits are. 95% ship cost reduction and 0 Empire size is super easy to achieve.
Which was known since beta, but Paradox released it anyway and also didnt adress it in the hotfix.
Not sure if anyone has said it yet but in interviews the game director said they started production about the same time as First Contact and it is a different team that made it. Paradox usually goes on summer vacations and don't do active development as I understand it so it would have had to release now or August. Also theres a report that the studio is getting consolidated, basically shutting down because they are moving everything to Stockholm as I understand it.
The studio is closing, but I assume they will still keep their custodians team
So in the same interview (I think it was with Aspec) they said the Custodian are actually get rotated through all of their developers. There isn't a set team and they want to give everyone a chance to be on it.
What makes you think it was a short development period? Did you watch any interviews with devs? It was developed in parallel with the First contact for a year.
With the actual size of the expansion and the team working on both First Contact and Paragons at the same time, it wouldn’t surprise me if the team was split fairly thin. I just want to know whether the decision to release the expansion was because of the anniversary, or something else
@@4Xtraordinaire The expansion was released early because Paradox Arctic (people that made galactic paragons and First Contact was made by Paradox Green which is the main stellaris team) was gonna be closed down and the anniversary just happened to be closeby so i guess they set the release date there.
Honestly sad that this happened, they we're clearly still doing something with the expansion until they were suddenly gonna get layed off cause of sh1tty higher ups.
this channel is underrated, I've watch like 3 of your videos and I gotta say it was a high quality review
Luckily, there are already over a dozen mods that increase the leader cap in different ways.
The devil works hard but the steam modders work harder
Apparently Stellaris has two teams, so maybe they were working on this longer then it seems because First Contact was made by other people.
Paradox Arctic also worked on First Contact, so I doubt they had that much extra time if they were splitting their team
@@4Xtraordinaire Paradox Arctic developed and led the Galactic Paragons DLC, and had very little to do with First Contact. But people from Arctic worked on Aquatics, Toxoids and Overlord.
@@secretpassenger8589 I still wonder how much help they received from the main team for this update, and whether or not they are working on something separate themselves
One of the worst phrases of all time was "the customer is always right"
Most of the time the customer doesnt even know what it wants.
In a gaming cummunity there is always that false sesation that everyone wants the same, but the truth is thaat the desire from every individual inside the community is always different from each other...and most of the time there is no middleground
A few more leaders would be nice...even a couple from the start would be a bit more lenient than the leader cap is now.
Scientists THAT hard to come by in a post-FTL society? Really?!
I find this year in Stellaris to be astounding so far.
I love it.
Both of the past two DLC were developed side by side, atleast for a time, so some of the bugs I've heard of, people are speculating that because the team that worked on this DLC didnt work on stellaris only, that the devs werent aware of every little feature and its interaction with their update. People react badly to the leader cap (I dont mind it, it litterally has not changed how I play) because they are coping that they can't be everywhere at once.
Having between 8 and 12 leaders is absolutely stupid. By the end I have 10 to 15 fleets, plus their respective invasion armies, I NEED GENERALES AND ADMIRALS. Not to forget the number of generals needed for my colonies and the scientists to explore and research. It's just stupid.
From a casual player’s perspective, this was a fun DLC that added a surprising amount of depth for role playing. A solid 9/10 from me!
I'd personally rate the expansion an easy 8/10. Sure, it's not perfect, but the leader rework has given it so much personality. I now feel a much more personal connection to my empire.
They just need to make the ai better and for fuck sake fix the middle/end game lag. I have to stop expanding and just purge and blow up planets to keep the game speed tolerable
I unironically had to upgrade my GPU because of how poorly it was running - CK3 is a breeze in comparison which is astounding after they added numerous events happening simultaneously for the expansion that just dropped.
Allowing there to be 2 separate origins that introduce 2 new opponents on top of the already existing 9+ for small or bigger maps was insane
I'm enjoying Paragons.
I think the leader cap is good. Having the freedom to do anything whenever you want does not create interesting game play. What makes games into games is the fact that we are restricted by rules and can seek to exploit them to gain an advantage. The leader cap introduces interesting decision making. Whereas before you would simply fire a leader that gained a bad trait willy nilly, now you have to actually think before doing so, because leader levels are harder to earn and are more impactful, but also you might not want to keep a leader with a bad trait in one of your limited leader slots. It's tricky. And that's good, because it makes your decisions more meaningful.
It's a massive overhaul, it was clearly in the works in the background for at least an expansion or two, if not most of a year. Anyone who thinks that a major overhaul of a system that touches and interacts with literally every single aspect of the game happened in a month or two is a joke.
You say that, but Imperator: Rome achieved an impressive amount in the short time that it had before cancellation. If they did work on something several months before, they would likely be doing so with a reduced team because Arctic was also working on the last DLC
Don't have the DLC but the free patch was a downgrade to the game. I keep ending up in wars where the ais have more admirals than i have leader cap and yet they are all higher level than my ruler mush less any of my admirals(if i'm lucky enough to afford 2). Governors now only matter to the planet their on meaning i now need EVEN MORE of them to do what i could pre update which the cap wont let me do. And finally scientist. Good bye tech focusing is my only real complaint with the update for them. TLDR the free patch made the vase game worse to try and sell the DLC
The last five dlcs were underwhelming, they tweaked a few ui and introduced new characters while going full circle with the leader cap, the penalties aren't that bad and isn't going to stop someone from adding more leaders, 🤷♂️ that's just me though I'm sure everyone loves reading the same scripts and mosh pit space battles
Subbed
Overlord has to have been one of the worst DLCs released for this series, namely from all the lazy coding with regards to vassal agreement costs that do not take into account similarities and differences between the two empire lets alone the worst part in that subjugation terms being a policy instead of a war goal.
Finally, i really like the expansion and it feels bad seeing all the negative reviews and some of the braindead takes in the subreddit
Paradox has always had an issue with there being a very vocal minority of the fanbase which disproportionately affects discourse. Not to say that they are always wrong, but they tend to be very abrasive
I dont think this update affected much honestly. You can still use 2 year old unity builds to get 1k+ science and a 20k fleet at year 20. Nothing game changing at all, just some extra fluff.
i was expecting a free update tbh
The size of the updates is fairly inconsistent, I wasn’t expecting a huge patch after First Contact released so recently
"STFU and take my money"
Was my personal and humble answer to this "question".
I just have to wait until mods are all upgraded and then it will be perfect.
But now, with just 91 mods in, it runs perfectly. 😌👌
I love this game.
Ah yes, the Skyrim modder approach
@@4Xtraordinaire "Skyrim"? 🤔
Mediocre DLC with update tailored specifically to sell it, that, in order to do so, added horrible changes to core gameplay.
I gotta love that everyone who has a problem with this update is "whining and seething".
Also no, leader cap does nothing to prevent lag, that's a problem with the sheer amount of pops in late game that have to be accounted for each tick, due to the game not being built to support so many of them.
Sad to hear about the leader cap not significantly reducing lag, but I still think that the community reaction is overblown.
Could it have been bigger, had a longer dev time, and a justifiably larger price tag? Fuck yes. But I will stand firm in my opinion that this is one of the better expansions modern Stellaris has seen
@@4Xtraordinaire Yeah, i don't know. I didn't get into Stellaris to coddle leaders, let alone have them predetermined. It's not CK or HoI.
I just think all of this was completely unneded. Leaders system wasn't perfect by any means, but at least it didn't feel so artificial.
It's like Paradox ran out of ideas what to change again, so they force a mechanic onto us, one that, at least imo, isn't fun to interact with, especially if you're an RP player. Not to mention that even IF you like this system, it's crippled without the DLC, exactly like espionage.
@@KnightspaceORG Paradox has been taking a more RP-focused approach with some of their later releases like CK3, so it doesn't surprise me that this bled over into games like Stellaris.
I don't know if this is because of sales, or whether they're trying to appeal to a different audience.
@@4Xtraordinaire I'm not entirely sure how predetermined characters and direct trait picking can even be considered an RP change. It looks to serve minmaxers, rather than anyone else.
@@KnightspaceORG I've had paragon Kai-sha, because she kinda fit my empire roleplay wise. She was in my empire for quite some time and then randomly died, which I only learned because I've got a notification about empty council position. I mean sure I could put her in one of my armies and let her randomly die on a planet invasion but it all just doesn't feel really roleplay-ish. Even the funerals, which came with the dlc, feel more like a way to actually help minmaxers, because different types of funerals give you different bonuses. And I feel like whenever you play as a regular empire, or (especially) empire with lower lifespan, these funeral events popup so often you eventually start to see them more as a spam, rather than "opportunity to roleplay more". I've so far tried playing with this dlc as necrophages and even with longer lifespan its hard to really get attached to leaders, who in the end for most of the species even look the same, with slightly different colour palette.
I like it.
;D
Man I can tell you that steam reviews are 85% bs or crying for no ACTUAL reason
This dlc was exactly what it needed. The leader cap is a perfect addition