The game doesn't scale anything in terms of strategic/luxury requirements when playing with low resources. There are just less of them in galaxy.

You can bump up your starting titanium and hyperium a fair bit using the first two mining buildings, the mineral miser law, the slag sludge planet improvement, and Sigma's overseer skills. With all of them in play you should get 6 of both p/t from Vanguard alone. That's pretty reasonable. Rinse and repeat for any other strategics you find. Luxuries can be a little harder to come by, but you can use the market to supplement your lux income, and be more selective in where you upgrade systems to get those other populations moving about. That's kind of true for a low resource game for anyone. I played a Riftborn, low resources, game the other day, and I'd say you get about as screwed as everyone else with the exception of the first two strategics. Worth bearing in mind that although singularities are good, you don't have to run three of them all the time if you need to spend your resources elsewhere.

It's worth a go though, makes the game more interesting in lots of ways.

Thanks for the heads-up!

I'm playing on a larger map size and didn't want to get a half dozen hours into things only to realize that I was hopelessly boned on resource-specific tasks.

I wasn't sure whether the game scaled some of the resource-specific aspects of the Riftborn to account for changes with the game settings.

I already have a difficult time with the Riftborn and wanted to try a round at low resource settings.

Sadly, EVERY faction is hosed by some game setting or other.  For every combination of game starting parameters, there's a faction out there just going "ahh, crap," often sitting right next to the one going "WOOHOO!!!"

Less minor factions?  Welp, Horatio's out.  Scarcer resources?  Vaulters will NOT be happy.  young galaxy with lots of hot planets?  I think I hear the Sophons crying in the corner...and gods help you if you join a game with a specific galaxy seed chosen to give the host the advantage...

Sometimes I think the sheer breadth of game settings is one of the reasons the game can feel so unbalanced so quickly...it's that weird, precarious phenomenon where there are SO MANY imbalances that the game paradoxically achieves a weird fascimile of balance almost in spite of itself.  It makes the game interesting and fresh each run...buuuuuuut it also limits its appeal by creating so many unfair scenarios and encouraging so many restarts.  I really feel like the game should have a few more algorithms in place to guarantee some sort of stability for each faction's start conditions, if only so there are fewer one-sided starts.

Daynen wrote:

Sadly, EVERY faction is hosed by some game setting or other.  For every combination of game starting parameters, there's a faction out there just going "ahh, crap," often sitting right next to the one going "WOOHOO!!!"

They are a lot of fun to play around with, at least...

A recent favourite is a galaxy where the only major factions are four or five Horatios, all battling to be the true Prime civilisation.

I'm considering trying a resource-heavy galaxy with few starlanes, playing as Vaulters and all the other factions set to Cravers...

Another possibility is a map with a whooooole lot of special nodes wherein half a dozen Unfallen civs battle it out with super-powered home worlds!

I'm okay with a lack of balance if it means more varied factions - the trade-off is worth it to me.

Daynen wrote:

Sadly, EVERY faction is hosed by some game setting or other.  For every combination of game starting parameters, there's a faction out there just going "ahh, crap," often sitting right next to the one going "WOOHOO!!!"

Less minor factions?  Welp, Horatio's out.  Scarcer resources?  Vaulters will NOT be happy.  young galaxy with lots of hot planets?  I think I hear the Sophons crying in the corner...and gods help you if you join a game with a specific galaxy seed chosen to give the host the advantage...

Sometimes I think the sheer breadth of game settings is one of the reasons the game can feel so unbalanced so quickly...it's that weird, precarious phenomenon where there are SO MANY imbalances that the game paradoxically achieves a weird fascimile of balance almost in spite of itself.  It makes the game interesting and fresh each run...buuuuuuut it also limits its appeal by creating so many unfair scenarios and encouraging so many restarts.  I really feel like the game should have a few more algorithms in place to guarantee some sort of stability for each faction's start conditions, if only so there are fewer one-sided starts.

^ this

Frogshackle wrote:

I'm okay with a lack of balance if it means more varied factions - the trade-off is worth it to me.

Unfortunately, the lack of balance is, historically, the BANE of varied factions.  Take the above examples and ponder for a moment the possibility of basically hosing as many factions as possible.  How many factions can you make completely unviable in a single galaxy?  Three?  Five?  How much diversity can you hose by the game settings?  How many factions are simply defeated by galaxy type alone?  If that's not a concerning thought, then think about this:

What if someone made it their mission to find game settings that ruined as many factions as possible and then played the only race that actually thrived in those settings--and then invited you to get utterly destroyed with no chance of a fair game?  What if this became the norm?  The game would degenerate into a war of three, maybe four factions or the like, dumping the others at the door because playing them would only mean handing the host free wins.

That is NOT where a game wants to be and it's not a state that anyone wants to experience.  Sure, you might get your rocks off being that tyrannical host who automatically wins, but you'll quickly find your games devoid of players once everyone learns to steer clear.  Eventually, the game becomes a graveyard where no one wants to play together because they all know exactly how every game will play out.  No one can force you to play the weakest faction in the game, but when you're surrounded by four or five players who're playing the best one, it won't be long before you're forced to play the same thing just to keep up.

Wonderfully diverse though it is, the factions need balance, not just with each other, but with the universe itself.  Several factions are utterly dependent on random elements to survive, while some just steamroll the galaxy without a care.  This is not okay.

Worth noting, there is a Riftborn quest reward which allows them to add +3 to the output of all of their deposits, potentially bring them back up to full power and beyond in a low resource galaxy which would otherwise hobble them. A major part of faction imbalance on different map types is that not all factions have such choices available to them- there are no Horatio quests which provide free splices, no quest reward halving splice cost requirements, etc.

Some factions get slight benefits in this area, like the Sophons +100% Industry on Hot law or the Vaulters being able to obtain basic resources using heroes, but they are few and far between and not always enough- the first is a law and the second provides no advanced resources, for example.

What if someone played chess, and refused to play any side but white, knowing it granted them an advantage? What if that that became the norm?

Chess is a symmetrical game of complete information though.  Aside from the fact that White starts first, players have identical starts, there is no hidden information and nothing is randomized.  That's a LOT of different variables.  Besides, anyone who refused to play Chess without taking the first turn would probably get the same result as any spoiled jerk who only wants to play by his own rules: less and less players wanting to play.

ES2 is not Chess.  There is vast randomization, extremely asymmetrical starts just based on faction alone, nevermind the galaxy generator...tons of unknown info both from the players and the board, and a LOT more potential parties in a single game.  This does make balancing a much more intricate dance than in Chess, but that only makes it MORE important, not less.  Do you really want the scene to devolve into, for example: "Cravers only or GTFO?"  Or I dunno...such a Vodyani-centric meta that 4-5 other races just get laughed at as people steamroll them?

Spoilers: you don't want that.

As an aside, the "white starts first" rule in Chess could effortlessly be amended by a simple randomization of the first turn, followed by a required switch for the next game.  Almost every turn-based two-player game today does this or some variation of it.  Some people are just sticklers for tradition, fairness be damned.

Slightly more off-topic aside, but I like to share:  did you know there's a sequel to Chess?

I would tell them to spend as much time learning to play the game as they spent gaming the game. They wouldn't need to cheese victory if they learned how to play.

In an ideal world, your advice would hold true.  That's not the situation in question, though.  Eventually, with all competition in which asymmetrical choices exist, SOMETHING will always emerge as the FOOS, or First Order Optimal Strategy.  Even though I detest this phenomenon, I grudgingly acknowledge that it exists and must account for it in my play.  To do otherwise is to remain stubbornly ignorant of reality and limit oneself unnecessarily.

Now, objectively, it's not wrong that FOOS's exist; the real thing to watch is how MUCH of a gap there is between the top and the bottom.  If the gap is small enough that specialist players can close it and still win with at least some consistency, then it may be an acceptable delta of power.  If players consistently dump many choices in favor of the FOOS, that's something to take a hard look at.  If players gravitate toward the top choice at the exclusion of ALL else, then you (the designer) have REALLY botched the job.

Unfortuantely for ES2 players, the galaxy settings throw all that out the window by letting a player determine for each game what the FOOS is going to be.

In retrospect, I feel like this was not a good design decision.  It effectively eliminates any semblance of a "standard" in MP games, unless everyone convinces the host to hit "default" on everything (and how often has anyone run into THAT I wonder?)  Every race wants certain settings and hates certain others, but the host reigns supreme with his ability to set up a game to his (sometimes quite extreme) advantage.  It essentially means that in ES2, there is no such thing as a level playing field unless everyone is playing the same faction...and the day we see THAT meta is the day ES2 dies.

@ Daynen

I guess you play a lot of MP and see this happen? Are you a competative player?

Daynen wrote:

Frogshackle wrote:

I'm okay with a lack of balance if it means more varied factions - the trade-off is worth it to me.

Unfortunately, the lack of balance is, historically, the BANE of varied factions.  Take the above examples and ponder for a moment the possibility of basically hosing as many factions as possible.  How many factions can you make completely unviable in a single galaxy?  Three?  Five?  How much diversity can you hose by the game settings?  How many factions are simply defeated by galaxy type alone?  If that's not a concerning thought, then think about this:

What if someone made it their mission to find game settings that ruined as many factions as possible and then played the only race that actually thrived in those settings--and then invited you to get utterly destroyed with no chance of a fair game?  What if this became the norm?  The game would degenerate into a war of three, maybe four factions or the like, dumping the others at the door because playing them would only mean handing the host free wins.

That is NOT where a game wants to be and it's not a state that anyone wants to experience.  Sure, you might get your rocks off being that tyrannical host who automatically wins, but you'll quickly find your games devoid of players once everyone learns to steer clear.  Eventually, the game becomes a graveyard where no one wants to play together because they all know exactly how every game will play out.  No one can force you to play the weakest faction in the game, but when you're surrounded by four or five players who're playing the best one, it won't be long before you're forced to play the same thing just to keep up.

Wonderfully diverse though it is, the factions need balance, not just with each other, but with the universe itself.  Several factions are utterly dependent on random elements to survive, while some just steamroll the galaxy without a care.  This is not okay.

Just curious though, in this hypothetical situation, woudn't that just mean the galaxy setting being used would be identified as unfair? and hence disregarded, rather than the faction?

Ideally, a character choice (faction, in this context) wouldn't have to be called unfair because there's nothing about the game that MAKES them unfair.  On occasion a player choice can become so strong, so ideal, so obviously better than anything else that any other choice simply becomes a terrible idea by comparison.  A generally good sign is whether or not your players can easily agree on what faction is the best.  If more than half your playerbase thinks one faction is clearly the best, it's time to start keeping a close eye on things.  I'd say If you hit two-thirds consensus, it's probably time to drop what you're doing and start asking some SERIOUS questions.

It's entirely possible, as per my point, that the galaxy settings ARE the potentially unfair part, which sparked this entire thread.  The fact that one player can set the galaxy to his preferences and invite folks in means the "guests" have only three choices:

1: They play factions that are suited to that galaxy type and the game is fair.  This is somewhat acceptable, though it leaves some factions by the wayside.

2: They play whatever they want and some folks just get hosed.  This is NOT acceptable because it ends friendships and interest in the game.

3: They recognize/discover the settings, decide their playstyle just won't work and don't play.  This is also not acceptable because it means people just don't play together at all.

Of the three, only one outcome is even tolerable by my standards, and even then only to a point, because it still invalidates several factions and excludes those player types from the fun before the game even starts and there's nothing the guests can do about it.

Contrast this with the average RTS game, where there's almost always some kind of "quick play" or "normal game" option with no custom settings, accompanied by a "custom game" mode.  The custom game mode is purely for entertainment and experimentation, whereas the normal mode is for matchmaking, progression, and what you could call "official" games--the benchmark by which everything is tuned and balanced.  Right now, ES2 technically has that standard by hitting the "default" button, but this is still completely under the host's control.  I've seen what happens in games where a player has complete control over his lobby; it's either completely copacetic or completely despotic.  I remember DOTA when it was just a Warcraft 3 custom map and the host had the last word.  One death and you were instantly a feeder who was kicked and banned from that host's games for life.  I do not exaggerate.

But what to do about it?  The obvious answer is to create a game mode where the players are NOT in control of all the settings and must let matchmaking decide part of their fate.  Perhaps some settings could be predefined by faction selection itself so as to prevent a total hose, or perhaps matchmade games are simply locked to the most neutral settings on everything so that no one is immediately screwed.  I realize the length of the average game makes this prospect difficult to implement but it IS an answer that's been proven to work in many different contexts.  Perhaps some tweaking is required.

@zyntree: Believe it or not, I haven't had the chance to play any MP ES2 yet.  I have, however, been playing games my whole life (read: 30 of my 36 years) and studying elements of game design for a large part of that.  I've learned to notice certain patterns that point to bad situations in the lifecycle of a game.  No matter the genre, there are things to watch out for that can end a game's popularity FAST and having one choice dominate a list of asymmetrical choices, especially in a multiplayer game, is very, VERY high on that list.

The idea of a quickplay mode is great. I would even be for allowing you to tweak game speed, but nothing else short of galaxy type. Even for the galaxy type, you could set up a voting system where 2 galaxies are randomly selected and players get to vote on which one to play.

mrbiggs007 wrote:

The idea of a quickplay mode is great. I would even be for allowing you to tweak game speed, but nothing else short of galaxy type. Even for the galaxy type, you could set up a voting system where 2 galaxies are randomly selected and players get to vote on which one to play.

Ehhhhhh...I'm leery of that.  It really shouldn't allow anyone any control of the galaxy type; otherwise the game gets slanted one way or another.  The goal, at least in my mind, is to create a game mode where all starts feel viable enough to play, no one ever feels the need to restart because their starting position reeked to high heaven (don't lie; you've probably done it at least once,) and no faction gets hosed by the galaxy type so all choices are viable.  It's a tall order to be sure.

I don't know how I can go back to normal or endless speed after playing on fast though; 150 turns is still quite a few, but 300?  600?  Even for marathon gamers that's one hell of a run--and I've most certainly done my share of gaming marathons.