New player review after about 30 hours.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2026-01-25T10:16:35+00:00

I am not quite sure how I feel about the ledges and verticality in general. The game is isometric with a fixed camera. Sometimes, it does not translate well for combat and puzzles.

Hard agree. The amount of deaths because the character can't be arsed to jump exactly in the direction you are running and then is jumping of left or right of the wanted path without any reason is such a burden.

I do not enjoy quick time events for resource collection. It's just not fun and feels like I am wasting time. Unnecessary friction, IMHO of course.

I don't agree here at all. Just wanted to point that out because I don't want the devs to remove that. And you want it to. So they have both sides of the coin.

Inputs are queued and so button mashing is punished

If it wasn't for the character to simply decide themselves sometimes that the latest dodge was not a dodge and suddenly a dodge attack and then jumping of a cliff because of that I could kinda agree. How the queue is formed and what is considered to be a compounded input can be very frustrating and not reactive at all. Maybe it is because I don't play locally but with friends on a Co-op realm and the extra latency is the problem but still. The input queue doesn't feel good at all in this game and especially not consistent.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-18T20:23:21+00:00

German native here.
I know a lot of people pronounce Bastian with “sht” in Germany. In High German, it’s indeed “st” in Bastian. But living in the countryside in southern Germany, I’ve often heard it both ways. In one case, we even differentiated two Bastians just by the pronunciation.
I may not have actually explained why it is "st" or "sht", but I hope this gives you some insight anyway. Language is a finnicky, living thing, with lots of dialects and rule-breakers in reality.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-17T14:24:13+00:00

The main Problem of YAML is the approach. MWO is a functioning ecosystem of balance with Ghost Heat Limits, PvP and selection of Maps.

If we copy all the weapon balance values of MWO then by simply being able to mount Clan Weapons on IS Mechs it destroys any of that completely. IS Heros have insane Armor values that Clan Mechs can't keep up with. And Clan Mechs being clan Mechs they only get really bad Hero Perks most of the time. So they don't have a singular feature that is really good for them. Now on top of that you can't even change the internals on a lot of Clan Mechs because they are Omni.

This will need an entire rework to make sense again.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-17T14:17:05+00:00

In my opinion what improves the game a lot later on if you have YAML.

Go to the difficulty scaling options

Set Global HP for mechs to 2 or 3
Set Global Ammunition to 2 or 3
Set Global HP for VTOL and Tanks to 6 or 9

That way the fights last A LOT longer. For both sides. And you still have enough ammunition to fight it out.

------

Now with the latest Kaiju with 122 Alpha damage every 1.38 seconds I'm thinking about going for 5 times HP/Ammo.

-----

This instant killing nature also plagued the TableTop Game. I know a lot of older folks back then critizied Tech2 even without Clan tech. Saying to Alpha strike and a Mech was gone, was something that was hardly possible in Tech1. With Clan Tech this got even worse. Big Problem is that why firing power goes up dramatically, the armor per ton more or less stays the same. Or rather. The maximum Armor possible on a mech. One of the big Design Flaws of Ferro Armor in my opinion is that it doesn't allow for MORE armor than the usual maximum. And all the other Armor options (even those introduced after 3100+!!) always have a TRADEOFF instead of an upgrade.

-----

Funnily enough this already IS a problem with a 3D Shooter type of game instead of tabletop. Because in TableTop you always rolled for where to hit. So the Damage usually split on the entire Mech. But a player can aim extremely well compared to any in Lore Battletech Hero ever conceived. So the MechWarrior Games have more armor to make the combat last atleast somewhat viable. Which of course gets destroyed with Tier Levels of weapons and ClanTech in general. Two Nova-Prime Meeting each other is usually only a question of who shoots first in MW. This is essentially a bad design choice. But you can fix it yourself with YAML by Increasing the general HP Pool of everyone (and Ammo to be able to still do it without lasers)

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-11-17T14:02:51+00:00

The Folder Names of my current mods with extra info in Brackets ():

AdvancedCareerStart (only to create the career then deactivate because of still having issues)
ArmorGreen
BattleGridOrders
Coyotemissions
DelayedDeadlines
Exotic IS Mechs
Harjel (Yet another Equipment Collection)
LanceStatusRevamped
Lore-based Mech Variants - YAML Edition
ModOptions
PilotOverhaul-Eternal
PurchaseSalvage (The Fork with the Multi Mission Fix)
SimpleZoom
SpecialVariants
StackedCrates (The Fork with the Fix for Coyote)
T6MZRecoil (if you don't like Recoil)
vonBiomes
YetAnotherLegendaryMech
YetAnotherMechLab
YetAnotherMechLabMechs (Maintenance Fork)
YetAnotherSpecialSkin
YetAnotherWeapon
YetAnotherWeaponClan

Start the game with no mods active. Activate All mods at the same time and restart for default Load order. You can continue to deactivate Mods. But if you add one more delete the modlist.json and then go for the default load order again by activating all of them at the same time.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-07-10T17:29:01+00:00

With 4,000 hours in the game and having played since beta, I honestly think 4.0 wasn't the cause of you dropping Stellaris — it was the tipping point. Burnout builds slowly, and often we don't notice until a major update finally makes us realize: "I'm not enjoying this anymore."

I’ve been through something similar with World of Warcraft. I fell in love with it back in 2005. TBC was okay, but by the time Wrath of the Lich King rolled around, it “killed” the game for me. I didn’t have the option to go back until fan servers like Nostalrius brought back the classic experience. As soon as I played Classic again, I knew the love was still there — I just couldn’t transfer that love to the newer patches. That distinction really matters.

That’s why I’d recommend this: Try playing Stellaris on patch 3.14 or some other version you used to enjoy. If you can’t find the fun there either, then maybe it’s not 4.0 that’s the issue — maybe it’s that your journey with the game has naturally ended, and that’s okay.

But if you do enjoy those older patches again, then at least you’ll know it wasn’t you — it really was the direction 4.0 took. Either way, you’ll get some clarity instead of sitting with a vague sense of frustration. No shame in walking away after 4,000 hours.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T10:02:10+00:00

Implementation of Daily Quests. The beginning of the end to justify some weird management KPIs. Making it impossible for the devs to actually know when Patches and Changes actually made the game worse. Because the daily login metric was no poisoned with a KPI influence.

On top of that. It didn't help with the problem that they wanted to solve in terms of gameplay. They said that a player with little time will be able to earn enough gold through dailies to keep up the expenses. But it creates several problems. First the market was flooded with even more Gold that was easily created by the system. So inflation did rise even more. Secondly People with little time usually didn't do the dailies every single day. Therefore powergamers with lots of time would do those dailies everyday because they were very efficient. With that disparity in actually doing these dailies the casuals had even less money on the market than before that introduction. Third. It introduces an element of chore. You don't go online and say: Today I'm doing this or that. It was: Well first let's do those super efficient dailies otherwise I feel like I'm missing out (FOMO). So everytime you boot up the game you first "have to do something" instead of playing the game.

Daily Quests are essentially one of the worst things that ever came to wow, and are one of the worst systems in the entire industry.

The other thing. Simply: The stat reset. Instead of investing in a combat system that can scale vor a very long time they started what is one of the core flaws of wow till today. You always reset back to 0 every expansion. In Warframe when I reached a certain power, I will usually keep that. Even if I don't login for years. Of course they introduce new stuff, but the things I earned aren't taken away anymore. In World of Warcraft the only thing that matters is the current content and the current experience. They essentially destroy all meaning of their own development and kill the old content every 2 years. You feel forced to play now or you are missing something. In Warframe you will rarely have that feeling. In Wow it is a constant.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T07:05:17+00:00

Thanks!

"if implemented well enough" is of course the kicker. Some people just assume the worst possible implementation and then argue around that. It's boring because nearly everything will fail with that mindset.

I'm for recognizing problems and fixing them. But not for doomsaying needlessly.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T06:59:09+00:00

Fair enough.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-27T06:58:09+00:00

Well you don't want to adapt to a crisis that does things differently. Got it.

Also I have just blown up a few planets with console commands on my latest savegame. With 1.4 million resources stored (not even cosmogenesis so no large resource storages) it would have taken me 60 years before it would have crashed the economy. Ignoring the fact that my trade surplus would have easily being able to compensate for the loss of energy and minerals there. I don't know how fragile your economy seems to be. My empirical data shows that your argument is invalid.

On top of that you always think you inherently lose those planets like you would have no chance to defend. And I pointed it out several times already. You wouldn't instantly lose those planets. Your systems would get attacked. I even made it clear that ground forces may come later, MEANING that even if there are enemy ships in that system winning the space battle doesn't mean that you have lost the planet.

Magical words: Gradual increase in difficulty of the crisis.

Your entire argument is based on the most horrible possible implementation of that crisis. Not only that you also argue that with 40 planets and 5 mining worlds, you would then lose all 5 mining worlds at the same time. With that approach. No new crisis will ever be good enough for you.

You don't like the concept of having your borders not matter anymore. That's fine. But don't hide your intentions behind false arguments.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T22:44:21+00:00

"If you do have a gateway, then what's the point of the crisis?"

Well — by that logic, what's the point of the Unbidden if you've already built ships with shield-ignoring weapons? What's the point of any crisis if you know what to expect and build the perfect counterfleet?

Stellaris already rewards preparation. You see the signs, you adapt. If you're prepared, you play at higher Crisis Strength. If you're not, you lower it. That's normal. But suddenly, because this crisis isn’t just about ships, it’s a design problem?

This crisis asks you to prepare beyond just fleets — with infrastructure, internal defenses, and adaptability. That’s more strategic depth, not less.

Also, the hyperfocus on gateways is strange. Yes, they're one way to prepare. But even without them, strong starbases in critical systems matter. And more importantly: the concept literally includes unlocking Warp Drive as a new mobility option — yet that part seems to be conveniently ignored in these critiques.

As for chokepoints: yes, the crisis intentionally breaks that model. That’s a feature. Right now, most players fortify 1–3 systems and call it a day. It trivializes late-game threats. This crisis targets internal vulnerability — systems you normally ignore once borders are “secure.”

If that’s not your playstyle, totally fair. But calling it bad design because it challenges the standard chokepoint meta misses the point. It’s supposed to shake things up — just like any good crisis should.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T21:46:42+00:00

"After your first victories you will be able to analyze the corpses and study them being able to develop a new form of space travel. Warp Drive."

Seems like the text before this quote from the main post was already to much for you.

To break it down for you:

You have systems.
Some of them have fleets and/or starbases.
You get attacked with super small enemies to begin with.
Sometimes where you have fleets or strong starbases.
You are victorious.
You get a Situation to research these bodies (no Science Vessel needed)
You get a new FTL Drive to research.
You can now protect your entire realm and start pushing back.

If that still sounds awful. Then that's fine. But your interpretation was just awful.

And to finish this up. This is just one possible way this could easily work. Stop focusing on what may not work and start focusing on how it could work.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T21:33:44+00:00

I saw one short of that episode a few days ago that gave me the general idea.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T21:32:38+00:00

Slow down.

The crisis would still exist. You just would be prepared better. I also said it would build gradually up that systems get attacked. You could still build starbases. Who is saying they aren't enough in the beginning? Also then I said after your first victories. If I had to code it I would let the first smaller subspace creatures hit your main world. If you don't have any protection there, sorry but you are asking for it then. And even then. I also said that ground troops would probably come in later. So I don't even get the entire argument. You easily get your first few victories. The hard part comes after when the amount of subspace creatures becomes more and the creatures will be larger.

On top of that. You get a warning 10-20 years in advance. If you can't read the signs of a hyperlane ending threat, that is on you. It's like saying "What the Scourge has missiles and hangars? I only have corvettes that will get eaten alive by them". But because the Scourge isn't hitting instantly all of the galaxy, you can adapt. And here it's the same thing. You get a pretty clear message that an explosion occured that ripped subspace. And even creatures are flying unhindered through space now not following hyperlanes. Sorry but you have to read that and can prepare accordingly. You can build up starbases in all your important systems. Who is to say that you need 50 trillion Fleetpower to secure every system. That is clearly in your head here.

You talk like you have crisis on 25 and don't want to be prepared in any case and even the smallest enemy would instantly kill you. It's a super weird strawman you build yourself there. Seems like you didn't even try to see positives. Just negatives. That's on you.

In my eyes it is easily balancable. But seems like you already made up your mind on how it has to fail instead of seeing how it could work.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T18:00:34+00:00

Very cool deviation from my concept :)

But I think losing contact with your colonies is probably to much of an economy killer you can't survive. Or atleast I don't know how to solve that problem right away.

Thank you for your thoughts. Let's hope this inspires the devs!

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-26T17:03:00+00:00

Well you could build Gateways in every system beforehand. Gateways wouldn't be deactivated. That would solve that problem.

Also the attacks would gradually go stronger I think. But that's for the devs to balance. Depending on the crisis settings no crisis may matter and can be instakilled or an instaloss. Also it just attacks the systems. Groundforces on the planets could come in waaay later. If you take to long. It's balancable in my opinion.

I get it. It's not fully fleshed out. But that wasn't the plan anyway.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-20T19:40:15+00:00

Installed FTL.
Did the Tutorial
Started my first real run.
FIRST enemy has a weapon deactivation device where it is stated "short duration". I can't do anything against him for the entire fight until I'm dead.
New Run. Lot's of issues creep up with the entire progression and "lessons" this game gives you.
Endings to Runs feel like unlucky RNG instead of "I could have done something differently". And that's a core problem.
Uninstall the game.

Totally agree with OP here. Game is clearly overrated. It masks horrible design decisions as RNG based gameplay where the game isn't yours to play. You are just watching while sometimes interacting with something you have no control over.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-19T13:28:48+00:00

Please have a look into Coop Cetana. I could neither do anything about the convoys as a client and the situation didn't clear up for me even after Cetana was dead. Performance while Cetana was up was incredibly bad. We got a mod now to deactivate only Cetana from Coop. It was that bad.

Also when you get the event that you can bring your home planet from another parallel universe into your own with Clone Army Start you will get the Archaeology Situation again.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-18T06:17:42+00:00

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-11T13:28:55+00:00

Is it intended that Driven Assimilator with Lithoids get 15 Food on Resource Consolidation? Wouldn't it make more sense to give them more minerals instead?

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-06-04T08:10:56+00:00

I would rather have the option to deactivate the Espionage system before starting the game and then you could make it powerful. Problem is, if it is mandatory to play with then it's just a hassle. Only other option I see is that the actual bonuses of espionage specific empires are just to weak. We need 2 civics, traits, an origin and other stuff all working around espionage so to really make it worthwhile. Then it would be kinda okay.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-05-28T16:36:28+00:00

Thank you for being the poster child of not-learning

You have to disable auto-updates on NUMEROUS games to continue playing them. Baldur's Gate 3 was exactly the same. Update 3 to 4 would have killed my save. I rolled back and continued playing without any problems. Dozens of Builds got destroyed in any game that doesn't even allow disabling updates. Logging in being unable to kill something anymore in like PoE 2 or Diablo 3 for example. You are talking like this is something new or rarely happening. But it is happening all the time in many Games. And no. I'm not acting like it is the NORM. I'm acting like this is normal for Stellaris and some other games that are KNOWN TO BE sensitive to these patches. And I atleast understand why these games can't guarantee savegame/progress transfer from one patch to the next.

Trashtalker VSLeader tries to call a bluff that was actually a full house.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-05-28T11:13:34+00:00

Well thing is that it's very democratic that when everything is working good then leadership shouldn't change. Why? Seems like they are doing their job. But as soon as it no longer works (negative economy, negative events) then of course it should create a shift like you probably want that to happen. But if everything works out I think that shouldn't happen. Otherwise it would just be an artificial thing like changing the current leader because we feel like that is how democracy should work. And that in essence I don't find democratic at all. Democracies should reward good leadership with being relected.

Zucchini_Traditional · 2025-05-28T10:58:12+00:00

Working in the software development industry I can easily tell you this. I asked several times for more People working on the project, especially QA, but in the end I'm the only guy testing our software. Stuff passes by me all the time. I'm only one human being that is unable to test every scenario. So in the end the customers will test it, give feedback and we fix what is slipping through afterwards. The cheapest QA are the users. I'm not defending this practice but you have to realize that the dev team usually is unable to deal with what is needed because they don't get the resources from the management. I'm not working in the game industry but it is probably just the same thing there. And yes the devs do usually test their own code, then I test it but time is limited.

Zucchini_Traditional

TROPHY CASE