I like the changes to lower the costs for upgrading system levels, but I don't think they went far enough.  I tried out the latest patch and mod with the Riftborn and I'm still having trouble upgrading my systems.  There is simply a cap on how many resources I can find from production and the market.  I stopped playing at turn 80 and I think I could upgrade two systems to level four by getting every easy resource (not necessarily beneficial ones).  The reason I stopped playing was because I was bored.  I can't expand any more, so no point in going to war and I'm just clicking end turn over and over again to get the scientific win (I've long ago disabled economic). 

I really like making approval more debilitating to slow rapid expansion, but the way around it by upgrading systems is still too much.  If the cost to upgrade system levels isn't significantly dropped, I'll have to always play on plentiful resources or just stop all together.  The game is just about waiting it out after turn 50 at this point (single player of course).

Planets: I uderstand that it is logical that a monsoon planet (lots or rain = lots of water) would be Fertile as a lot of life can be present there and the same goes to Mediterranean.

But reading the posts I also understand why people are against it.

Maybe if we would know the reasons for this change from development side it would be a better discussion.

Trading Companies: Sounds great and was waiting for it.

Heroes: Sounds great and was waiting for those changes.

Overcolonization: I had big problems with keeping approval at a proper level during my games and had to use laws to stop rebelions (I like the fact that I had to do that).

I could have simply not expanded so much but on the other hand there were still system waiting to be populated and the AI also didn't seam eager to grab them so it looks like this is a good change.

Hello,

Thank you very much for the feedback!

About the Fertile added to Monsoon and Mediterranean, I think you are right and we might drop it. We might explore it in the future again (we think it's better in terms of immersion), but it would probably require a balance pass on all planets FIDS values, which isn't something we will be able to dedicate time to in the immediate future.

About Heroes, you are spot on with the values ; to summarize:

Active XP:

• On Construction Complete: Production Cost * 0.04, Minimum 5XP
• On Node Discovered: 4XP
• On Curiosity searched: 6XP
• On Battle Fought: the hero gets the XP received by his ship x10. Ships receive an equal part of the XP displayed after a battle (if I have 4 ships and I won 10 XP in the battle then each ship gets 2.5XP)

Passive XP (Per Turn): (Modified by the game speed modifier)

• Being Assigned: +1 XP (I was actually considering removing this gain with the addition of passive gains)
• Admirals: Fleet CP * (1 + Number of Strategic Modules / 10 ) -> this is the number of strategic modules on a ship. So a large ship with 4 strat modules would grant by itself : 6 * (1 + 4/10) = 8.4 XP
• Governors: we don't usually give exact formulas but since several of you guys are into modding here goes: (nbPopulation / 2) * 1.15 ^ (SystemLevel - 1). @CyRob you can find it in SimulationDescriptors[StarSystem] (look for PassiveStarSystemExperienceRewardForGovernors)

The Transvine change was added in the last (admittedly rather recent) patch so why is it in the mod?

It required the same line to be changed in the XML so we couldn't separate them (there was also a bug on this deposit). As it's also a balance issue though, we felt it was relevant to display it here to gather your feedback and know if we should change it or not :).

Since the significance of trading company levels has been diminished by the big nerf to them I would suggest tying the freighter system to the level system,

This is an idea we seriously considered internally (are you a spy?), but since it requires code we couldn't directly implement it in the balance mod. We will wait for more feedback and consider if it's relevant to have a specific development for it.

Trade Route Length Income Modifier Formula

But no changes whatsoever have been made to it in this version of the G2G mod.

Yes it's true; this is because the length impact of a trade route is something we would like to keep as it's a "high risk/high reward" decision to make. "Should I go for a long route with a strong bonus that will be hard to defend from blockades, or a shorter, safer route?"

Of course we're discussing balance so tweaks could be made if you think the bonus is still broken :). But with the other nerfs we felt it was important to leave some player agency in how they developped their routes.

The 5 XP minimum for finished buildings seems irrelevant to me, since the cheapest buildings (Drone Networks and Cerebral Reality) both cost 160 industry which is 6.4 XP. Even with the scienctist law with 20% reduced cost they cost 128 industry which is 5.12 XP. What is the point of that number?

You are entirely correct! This is a leftover from a pass where we had lowered even more the gains from system improvement (to 1.5% of industry cost). It's not lost as a safety measure though, I will have to check (it's possible some ships or other constructibles cost less than 160 industry). If not we might as well remove it indeed.

Finished my first game with this iteration of the mod, as Cravers since I wanted to try a fighting heavy game for gauging admiral heroes. Didn't run into any bugs while playing.

Thanks for the report!

We'll see if we can track down the "Adpet Workers" bug and do an update before the week-end, but otherwise we'll let the week-end pass to let more players offer their impressions before the next tweals.

Again, thank you to everyone who tried out the changes!

ridesdragons wrote:

cyrob, can you tell me why atoll is your favourite planet type? you say it's the only top-tier planet with high industry, [...]

To start off with my definition of top-tier planets is Ocean, Forest, Terran & Atoll as they are only planets with the maximum population slots (6 on Tiny, 10 on huge) And Atoll has 50% more industry than any of the other types.

Also, you do not seem to account for pop slots as on tiny planets this means you get a 20% increase to Raw FIDS and still a 11% Increase on Huge.

I like to play tall so to me Food & Pop slots are king also then having three lots of Jadonyx in system development gives a boost that a high food production system can really take advantage of.

But I would agree with you that temperate feels like the weakest planet gameplay type in terms of the bonuses it gets from buildings.

stl0369 wrote:

I like the changes to lower the costs for upgrading system levels, but I don't think they went far enough.  I tried out the latest patch and mod with the Riftborn and I'm still having trouble upgrading my systems.

The issue here is that you’re playing Riftborn and System development costs are balanced around Non-Riftborn factions. The common resources (both strategic & Luxury) will not spawn on sterile planets. So, they become rather rare for the Riftborn, although Uncommon & Rare resources spawn more on Riftborn Ideal worlds.

I talked about Riftborn resources in-depth in this Post (In a Different Thread)

I suggest that Riftborn have the System Development Cost for common luxuries reduced as they do not spawn on Sterile planets. (Meaning the Riftborn struggle to get them early on)

Instead maybe you could increase Rare Luxury costs as they often have more of them.

Or you could even have all tiers have the same cost; Level 2: 20, Level 3: 40, Level 4: 60.

jhell wrote:

About the Fertile added to Monsoon and Mediterranean, I think you are right and we might drop it. We might explore it in the future again (we think it's better in terms of immersion), but it would probably require a balance pass on all planets FIDS values, which isn't something we will be able to dedicate time to in the immediate future.

If planet gameplay types are being discussed, I would like to see the return of the hidden types, Give a proper use to Tree (maybe unfallen can only build specializations on them or they get an approval benefit on tree planets but a malus on non-tree planets) and what happened to dry and water their icons are still in the files?

Just a thought (haven’t tested it) but I believe that Terraforming to Monsoon or Mediterranean will not give the Fertile planet gameplay type as "ConstructibleElement_Industry[Terraformation].xml" has not been changed.

About Heroes, you are spot on with the values ; [...]

• Governors: we don't usually give exact formulas but since several of you guys are into modding here goes: (nbPopulation / 2) * 1.15 ^ (SystemLevel - 1). @CyRob you can find it in SimulationDescriptors[StarSystem] (look for PassiveStarSystemExperienceRewardForGovernors)

Well That explains why I could not find it, I do not have a SimulationDescriptors[StarSystem].xml file in the G2G Mod folder, Has my steam just decided not to download it or is it missing from the mod?

Since the significance of trading company levels has been diminished by the big nerf to them I would suggest tying the freighter system to the level system,

This is an idea we seriously considered internally (are you a spy?), but since it requires code we couldn't directly implement it in the balance mod. We will wait for more feedback and consider if it's relevant to have a specific development for it.

Damn, my cover is blown! I mean, of course not. I did mention this in my megapost before 2.0 came out (about 7 days ago) so maybe you got it from there or I'm just thinking on the same wavelength as you guys, I'm totally not a spy which is something a spy definitely would not say

Trade Route Length Income Modifier Formula

But no changes whatsoever have been made to it in this version of the G2G mod.

Yes it's true; this is because the length impact of a trade route is something we would like to keep as it's a "high risk/high reward" decision to make. "Should I go for a long route with a strong bonus that will be hard to defend from blockades, or a shorter, safer route?"

Of course we're discussing balance so tweaks could be made if you think the bonus is still broken :). But with the other nerfs we felt it was important to leave some player agency in how they developped their routes.

My biggest issue with this modifier is not that it is unbalanced but that how unbalanced it is varies depending on galaxy settings that it should account for, I do not mind it being powerful as like you said it gives the high risk/reward decisions, but it currently does not do that as larger maps allow for high reward lower risk routes by just putting them at the ends of your empires (particular on exceptional 8-arm spiral maps. I would not be unhappy with the use of a formula like ($(PathLength)/$(AveragePathLength))*3 You still get the benefit of going high risk but only if it is high risk, as the longest route will get much higher bonuses if it is much longer than other route, since the formula pits the routes against each other, galaxy settings should cease to have an effect, and adds the strategic element of blockading enemies increases your trade income, which the game currently lacks.

If you do not want to make this change I do another idea to balance trade companies but it does turn the whole system on its head.

all the modifiers can be left as they are (before or after the Mod, it does not matter (benefits of the relative system)) but with the exception is the trade company income is instead changed to trade company power.

Now I'll get back to trade company power, but a new feature is added The Trade Pool which is a sum of X% of the income; dust & luxuries (you would have TradepoolDust, TradePoolLux01, etc.)

of all the systems in the trade network (or maybe just all systems) You can change what the X% is to balance all this (could be 20% or 150%) then what happens it the trade pool is divvied depending on trade power, so trade company income is now =$(TradePoolDust)*($(TradeCompanyPower)/$(TotalTradePower)). This whole system means that the amount you make in trade companies depends on what is already been made, So crazy levels are only possible if you already have crazy levels, This also adds the "economic warfare" aspect of blockading others increasing your cut of the pie.

Damn, my cover is blown! I mean, of course not. I did mention  this in my megapost before 2.0 came out (about 7 days ago) so maybe you  got it from there or I'm just thinking on the same wavelength as you  guys, I'm totally not a spy which is something a spy definitely would not say

*Stares suspiciously*

Admirals: Fleet CP * (1 + Number of Strategic Modules / 10 ) -> this is the number of strategic modules on a ship. So a large ship with 4 strat modules would grant by itself : 6 * (1 + 4/10) = 8.4 XP

Governors: we don't usually give exact formulas but since several of you guys are into modding here goes: (nbPopulation / 2) * 1.15 ^ (SystemLevel - 1). @CyRob you can find it in SimulationDescriptors[StarSystem] (look for PassiveStarSystemExperienceRewardForGovernors)

I ask again: what is meant by "strategic modules"? Is it all weapon, defense and support modules on the ship? If so, the example is kind of wierd since large ships always have much more than 4 module slots. Also, does the hero ship itself contribute to this XP gain?

A quick message to let you know we've fixed the missing file (very sorry) and the Adept Workers bug!

@CyRob: I'll try and give you a proper answer next week

@Maser: Yes it's all strategic modules. The idea is to account for ship size but also ship "quality", in the idea that if Governors level faster on very good systems, then so should Admirals on very good fleets. And yes the Hero ship should also contribute to this (I'll verify as I'm not sure it counts as 1 CP).

WeaponizedCaffeine wrote:

Damn, my cover is blown! I mean, of course not. I did mention  this in my megapost before 2.0 came out (about 7 days ago) so maybe you  got it from there or I'm just thinking on the same wavelength as you  guys, I'm totally not a spy which is something a spy definitely would not say

*Stares suspiciously*

*Quickly hides stolen game design documents of upcoming secret stuff* I mean *whistle nonchalantly*

Maser wrote:

Admirals: Fleet CP * (1 + Number of Strategic Modules / 10 ) -> this is the number of strategic modules on a ship. So a large ship with 4 strat modules would grant by itself : 6 * (1 + 4/10) = 8.4 XP

I ask again: what is meant by "strategic modules"? Is it all weapon, defense and support modules on the ship? If so, the example is kind of wierd since large ships always have much more than 4 module slots. Also, does the hero ship itself contribute to this XP gain?

I Believe Strategic Modules are any modules that cost strategic resources

In the files its any with: <SimulationDescriptorReference Name="ModuleTypeStrategic" />

There is currently 84 "Strategic Modules"

While is possible to have more than 4 Strategic Modules on a ship is gets very costly quickly.

The Hero ships probably would contribute but as it has 0 CP its effects would be cancelled out, I'm assuming the formula is Ship CP * (1 + Strategic Modules / 10 ) and done for each ship in the fleet then summed and for hero ships that would mean 0 * (1+X/10) = 0

jhell wrote:

A quick message to let you know we've fixed the missing file (very sorry) and the Adept Workers bug!

@CyRob: I'll try and give you a proper answer next week

@Maser: Yes it's all strategic modules. The idea is to account for ship size but also ship "quality", in the idea that if Governors level faster on very good systems, then so should Admirals on very good fleets. And yes the Hero ship should also contribute to this (I'll verify as I'm not sure it counts as 1 CP).

It seems that I am now the one being cross-posted, Oh well, I'm glad that those bugs are fixed, it's good to know the issue was not on my end. 

I'm happy to wait for a response, after all I can't expect a quick answer to 3000-something words of my thoughts & ideas.

Any quick reply would not be a good in-depth fully thought one, And I would much like a proper reply rather than a quick one.

So as long as I get one before the next major update I'll be happy.

Ok, I tested hero exp and I found the following: (on normal speed, so game speed modifier is 1)

All heroes:

Being assigned: +1 XP (I realized why I got +3 passive XP per turn before: it was because I play vodyani which have the "Legendary Heroes 2" trait, which gives +2 hero exp per turn. Duh...)

Governors:

Passive XP is (pop/2)*1.15^(SystemLevel-1) 

Finished buildings XP is industry cost * 0.04 (including Denarque, so nothing special for wonders it seems like)

Admirals:

Passive exp: +1 XP per CP on fleet (modules have no effect whatsoever, even those which cost strategic resources. This is a bug.)

Curiosity searched: +6 XP

Node discovered: +4 XP

Admiral battle exp: the entire fleet gains some amount of XP, split over all ships equally. The admiral AND his ship gets 10x their share. I don't know the exact values for how battle XP is calculated, but it's somewhere between 4-6 XP per CP destroyed. (Can someone elaborate on this formula?)

Note: a hero and his ship always have the same XP. So even a governor who have never been outside a system until level ~15 will have a high level ship.

Okay, now for some comparisons:

A lategame system have approximately 2k industry production and 36 popultation on a level 4 system. This results in 1 + (36/2)*1.15^3 + 2k*0.04 = 108.4 XP per turn on average. 

A lategame fleet should probably consist of 3 non-upgraded carriers (10 module slots) and 2 small upgraded support ships (9 module slots) (in total 20 CP). That would give the admiral 1 + (1+10/10)*18 + (1+9/10)*2 = 40.8 XP per turn on average. XP from fights would be divided on 6 ships, then multiplied by 10 for the hero. So if a fight would give 48 displayed XP, that would give the hero 80 XP.

To max out a hero, you typically want level 14 or 15. That is approximately 2000 XP in total, which can realistically be reached in about 20 turns

Conclusions: late game systems will still give better XP than fleets, unless you win big fights every other turn. In the midgame before your industry ramps up, admiral XP might even be better than governor XP, but you still need to battle.

I like the changes a lot. Governor XP doesnt spiral out of control anymore since you shifted a bit of XP gains from industry (which can snowball) to population (which is capped). Admiral XP is certainly better now, and even hough you need to be active and fight with your hero to be competitive, I feel that that is how it probably should be.

One thing I would like to see being added is bonus admiral passive XP while in hostile territory, or some bonus XP when besiegeing or invading a system. Those are also active things you can do with your hero ships that doesn't rely on your opponents having fleets they can fight with (and don't just retreat with).

Can you guys confirm that wormhole technology has disapeard ? 

Maser wrote: [...]

Admirals:

Passive exp: +1 XP per CP on fleet (modules have no effect whatsoever, even those which cost strategic resources. This is a bug.)

I'll try look into this, as I wouldn’t expect a dev response (and thus a fix) till Monday.

SuperMarloWorld wrote:

Can you guys confirm that wormhole technology has disapeard ? 

It is still there for me, The G2G Mod does not touch the "ConstructibleElement_Science[QuadrantScienceAndExploration].xml" or "SimulationDescriptors[TechnologyScienceAndExploration].xml" files. So I would assume that this is caused by something else.

Check in case the tech still works but the tooltip is broken. are you using any other mods?

Nope, only mod. I got the tech but the worm hole didnt appear. Erf. Do UE have a special thing for worm hole ?

Oh good point. I didnt noticed i played on a unique constellation. I usually never play with an unique constellation but i did for some tests on mini galaxy size, and didnt changed it back. I also didnt know htere was no worm hole in unique constellation map ! Thanks !

All of the G2G has been great, and this one is no different.  Especially with customs and point changes they are almost viable in multiplayer where balance is most important.   (not saying it isn't for MP)  

I also love the lumens getting a racial of a extra trade company, however the lumens are probably in the best place race wise now in the game.  

What I have not seen talked about too much are beams.  The AI is the only people who use them.  Currently, in single and MP there usefullness is at a zero.  Every ship I ever designed with a beam as been scrapped.  There are almost no tactics that can gaurantee there use and lots of tactics that aviod there use.  I will not deny that there power is scary, so if they do get to fire, good luck.  Your dead, or your opponent is dead. 

Something I would like to see to dramatically increase there versatility while not overpowering the OP kinetics as the game stands (except for sophon beams with there heros) are maybe giving them the ability to fire at medium range at 50% efficiency (just a guess).

The idea is that beams will see action in battles, and they will cause players to really pay attention to range flotillas to either aviod them at all cost, or try to use them at all cost.   Right now, they are not in a good place, maybe something along those lines would put them in a better place?  

down the road, if kinetics end up having the ability to shoot down fighters and bombers, they are in need of a strong nerf.  Because if that being the case as that travels down the pipeline, I can't see  any other weapon beign useful, becasuse they already counter missles, and offer enough destructive power to level most fleets except a buffed voydani or sophon long range laser fleet.  Anyway, just my opinion, love where the game is going.  

Thanks guys for working so hard on the balance point, also love the change to gaurdians and pathfinders, glad you guys saw the descripency in power.  I also like the new resource model, 25.

@Plutar

It was under the Fighters and Bombers GDD thread where they mention having beams fire at medium range with longer cooldown. So it seems they will keep their power but fire less often when not at short range. 

That works for me, my issue is still that Kinetics doubles as flak. If they dont nerf kinetics enough damage-wise then it will still be the superior choice. If they nerf it too much then it still performs the role of a flak module and they could just have added them as the counter to missiles and F/B anyway.

1.0.37 prewiev, G2G balance mod. Fast travelers perk dosent work for sophon starting ships =( Is this a bug or a nerf?

Ptirodaktill wrote:

1.0.37 prewiev, G2G balance mod. Fast travelers perk dosent work for sophon starting ships =( Is this a bug or a nerf?

In the G2G Balance Mod Files the Fast Travelers trait is set to the same effects as vanilla;

Fast Travelers I giving +1 Maximum Movement & Fast Travelers II giving +2 Maximum Movement.

Does the trait work when the G2G Balance Mod is not enabled?

CyRob wrote:

Ptirodaktill wrote:

1.0.37 prewiev, G2G balance mod. Fast travelers perk dosent work for sophon starting ships =( Is this a bug or a nerf?

In the G2G Balance Mod Files the Fast Travelers trait is set to the same effects as vanilla;

Fast Travelers I giving +1 Maximum Movement & Fast Travelers II giving +2 Maximum Movement.

Does the trait work when the G2G Balance Mod is not enabled?

 Ive made some screenshots with base Sophons start :

1) 1.0.36 no mods, https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/849347022574401757/8E127DFC6F0FC16F296863D95A9C2C8B1BCFFD94/ 

2) 1.0.37 no mods https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/849347022574406015/7F4263FF025CDE5EE843FAF9699D13C76649D94B/

3) 1.0.37 with G2G mod https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ugc/849347022574409421/82040E9242D94F5A15F36E4BBFED2B5DAE1E4233/

 For some reason Fast travelers dosent apply to hero ship in all versions - should be speed 8 with one engine. With G2G all ships have speed 6, should be 8 for detecto (4 base+2 engine+2 perk)

BTW anyone knew how antimissiles works? Missile seems uterly useless in MP, as one kinetic gun per ship counter whole volley 0_o. And the red missiles seems to do zero dmg.