Is 3.7 the best version of Stellaris (before Galactic Paragons)

[Dukeman]

I couldn't and still can't stand Stellaris after the Galactic paragons update. is the version just before its release the best or should I rolled back more

[Immortalis]

There is no "best" version because that's a highly subjective evaluation, made on a plethora of factors.

I loved having different FTL methods but due to all other changes I wouldn't want to go back to that version.

Ultimately, the only real answer is "if you like it, play it". Word of caution though, if you want to play some mod do make a copy of that mod on your machine so that you'd still be able to play it even if (or when) the mod gets updated for newer versions

[★REM★]

last best version was 2.1, anything behind it was a slow decline

[Xaphnir]

Is battleship behavior with x-slot weapons broken in 3.7, or was it 3.8 that broke that?

If it's not broken, then yeah, I'd say 3.7 is probably the best version. If it is, then 3.6.

[Geoff]

Originally posted by Dukeman:

I couldn't and still can't stand Stellaris after the Galactic paragons update. is the version just before its release the best or should I rolled back more

I prefer 3.6, but I don't have experience with earlier versions than that. Since Paragons I've heard a lot of perspectives from folks who think the game went wrong far earlier than that. There is a trajectory of change initiated by the "Custodian" team towards a Warhammer clone rather than a sci-fi strategy game. One of the dev diaries recaps which innovations they're responsible for, and it does include a lot of the weaker DLCs and species packs.

I see it more as 3.8 was the last straw on an increasingly weary camel's back. The main difference between 3.6 and 3.7 is that the latter is faster and included a lot of changes that weakened the centrality of resource management. Also, cloaking if you have First Contact makes it really easy to bypass obstacles that were otherwise impassable until much later in the game.

[Kalemenos]

Yes, at least in comparison to the posterior verisons.

[Hellzcatz]

I hate this conversation. This is the only game I have that has this stupidity. Want to make big, over arching changes? Make them optional - IN GAME - insyead of splitting the version like this game and their "amazing" dev team did.

[HappySack]

Whatever version of the game you like is the best version, there's no reason to stay with the current version in the hopes that things will be better like you're in an abusive relationship.

[dcain3456]

I have my game locked on 3.9.3. I like GP, can understand why some don't.

[Illusia]

Originally posted by Hellzcatz:

I hate this conversation. This is the only game I have that has this stupidity. Want to make big, over arching changes? Make them optional - IN GAME - insyead of splitting the version like this game and their "amazing" dev team did.

This argument is also pretty dumb if im honest. Do you know how much development time it would be trying to balance mechanics across what amounts to different interpretations of how mechanics should work?
Like imagine if borders got 'optionally' changed (which then means starting tech system didn't get changed) and now suddenly, you have a mechanic (ftl inhibitors) that either strand fleets in random systems nearby to a ftl inhibiting starbase, or makes them every jump point into it into a culdesac essentially? How bad would that break the already barely held together AI at that stage of the game? The open/closed borders as well?
If they're all optional, then you gotta balance them across so many different, well, essentially gamemodes, game rules. We'd literially never get new content with them trying to make each instance of the game work okay.
im frustrated by some of the larger changes as well (vassals being constantly jerked around even after Overlord released, leaders as well) but I can at least accept that the game is overall more playable than it was back then in other ways, even if all the mechanics don't work exactly how i might wish for them to.

[Hellzcatz]

Originally posted by Illusia:

Originally posted by Hellzcatz:

I hate this conversation. This is the only game I have that has this stupidity. Want to make big, over arching changes? Make them optional - IN GAME - insyead of splitting the version like this game and their "amazing" dev team did.

This argument is also pretty dumb if im honest. Do you know how much development time it would be trying to balance mechanics across what amounts to different interpretations of how mechanics should work?
Like imagine if borders got 'optionally' changed (which then means starting tech system didn't get changed) and now suddenly, you have a mechanic (ftl inhibitors) that either strand fleets in random systems nearby to a ftl inhibiting starbase, or makes them every jump point into it into a culdesac essentially? How bad would that break the already barely held together AI at that stage of the game? The open/closed borders as well?
If they're all optional, then you gotta balance them across so many different, well, essentially gamemodes, game rules. We'd literially never get new content with them trying to make each instance of the game work okay.
im frustrated by some of the larger changes as well (vassals being constantly jerked around even after Overlord released, leaders as well) but I can at least accept that the game is overall more playable than it was back then in other ways, even if all the mechanics don't work exactly how i might wish for them to.

No.

The only positive things they did in the last years and that was a good thing, was to incorporate changes to previous DLCs. Except for a vew quality of life things, they look like they are stumbled in the dark for the next game/spinoff and using players of Stellaris as betas for ANY ideas that barely stick.

[Immortalis]

Originally posted by Hellzcatz:

Originally posted by Illusia:

This argument is also pretty dumb if im honest. Do you know how much development time it would be trying to balance mechanics across what amounts to different interpretations of how mechanics should work?
Like imagine if borders got 'optionally' changed (which then means starting tech system didn't get changed) and now suddenly, you have a mechanic (ftl inhibitors) that either strand fleets in random systems nearby to a ftl inhibiting starbase, or makes them every jump point into it into a culdesac essentially? How bad would that break the already barely held together AI at that stage of the game? The open/closed borders as well?
If they're all optional, then you gotta balance them across so many different, well, essentially gamemodes, game rules. We'd literially never get new content with them trying to make each instance of the game work okay.
im frustrated by some of the larger changes as well (vassals being constantly jerked around even after Overlord released, leaders as well) but I can at least accept that the game is overall more playable than it was back then in other ways, even if all the mechanics don't work exactly how i might wish for them to.

No.

The only positive things they did in the last years and that was a good thing, was to incorporate changes to previous DLCs. Except for a vew quality of life things, they look like they are stumbled in the dark for the next game/spinoff and using players of Stellaris as betas for ANY ideas that barely stick.

In your opinion.

Personally, I have absolutely zero issue with anything they’ve done in the last years.

At one point in time people have to grow up and realise the world doesn’t revolve around oneself and that someone might even like something you hate.

Vote with your walllet as to what you’d like the game to be but always be prepared for your notion being overruled

[★REM★]

Originally posted by Immortalis:

Personally, I have absolutely zero issue with anything they’ve done in the last years.

just wow. Either you are paid to say that or you have very low standards.

[Geoff]

Originally posted by ★REM★:

just wow. Either you are paid to say that or you have very low standards.

Status quotidian.

[Immortalis]

Originally posted by ★REM★:

Originally posted by Immortalis:

Personally, I have absolutely zero issue with anything they’ve done in the last years.

just wow. Either you are paid to say that or you have very low standards.

Seriously speaking, what has actually changed in the past year?

Leaders working a tad different? Players having to decide between a few random options for their traits?

I lived through the FTL methods change, the population rework, the complete overhaul of how space combat works and to me every single of those updates, as devastating as it was to the status quo ante, resulted in an overall better game.

The new leader system doesn’t impact me at all, I don’t care for it but it’s not like it has ruined the game for me either.

Astral planes? Yes, it was a weak DLC; the individual pieces were good narrative pieces but too few in between with a weak mechanic linking them. So?
Did that ruin the game?

To me it didn’t, 95% of what I do (or can do) in game is exactly the same as it was 12 months ago and the actual adaptation of my playstile to the new mechanics was absolutely minuscule.

[fergis4]

when I heard about the dlc subscription service I decided I was done buying stellaris content forever. I hate the nerfs they made and I'm sick and tired of the constant updates that each and every time break my game save and all the dlc is slowly going down hill as the game is getting made more boring and less enjoyable with each new update. I rolled back to gemini and there my game will now forever stay because I'm sick of the devs killing a game I love for money