I don't personally see the problem with magnetic field generators. Yes, they speed up research, but if it seems too fast then one can play on slow game speed. And since everyone gets them, it's not unbalancing.

1) I agree, especially when Industry Academic Partnerships is so much weaker on a level 5 hero. I think the building could even stand to be nerfed to +20%, and Industry Academic Partnerships could have a follow up ability with +25% to +40%. Then again, I also think Industry Academic Partnerships should be moved to the negotiator tree.



2) I think the way to fix this is to change the prerequisites of Civil Engineer. I'm not sure which would be more balanced, but either Director 2 -> Efficient Schooling -> Civil Engineer, or Director 3 -> Efficient Schooling -> Civil Engineer. These would require level 5 or 6 respectively. This would put it on par with the Corporate leader's Industry-Academic Partnerships in terms of speed. Speaking of which, I think Industry Academic Partnerships should probably be moved to the negotiator tree. Also note, the admin' is the only leader type that gets nothing unique in the Veteran tree. I could go on, but the best way, in my mind, to fix the problems here would to be to completely rework the Hero leveling tree, either giving each Hero type a unique tree (my preference), or reworking the current tree in order to balance.



3) If nothing else, I think combat should be more intuitive and transparent.

Lechai wrote:
The problem with the corp heroes is that unlike admin heroes who provide + food and industry bonuses, corp just give trade bonuses as opposed to tech/ dust generation which makes more logical sense.

I would prefer multi-tier low level dust and science generation traits for the poor neglected corp heroes, and as davea has made use of, buyout bonuses.

The problem with the corp heroes is that unlike admin heroes who provide + food and industry bonuses, corp just give trade bonuses as opposed to tech/ dust generation which makes more logical sense.

I actually like each of the three things you have a problem with. One of my favorite things in 4x games are empire changing technologies, that are terribly powerful compared to other techs of their level. Examples include autolabs in MOO2 (+30 research/planet) or the Mind Control Center in Galciv2 Dark Avatar (nerfed in the next expansion, but was +100% to economy). The problem comes if there is only one such powerful technology and anything but rushing for it is stupid. I don't think Endless Space has that problem. It's perfectly viable to go for wormhole tech first (as part of an expansion approach), or to the tech (can't recall the name) that gives +2 CP fleet size and +20% leader xp (with a military approach - the larger fleet size means more ships under the hero's influence, faster hero xp means stronger hero, and cumulatively it can make a huge impact on invasion speed). If I have to think hard before deciding which path to go down, or even if the correct one changes depending on the game situation, then it's a kind of balance. It'd be pretty boring if the tech tree was full of incremental improvements and no big, meaningful game changers.



I think heroes are intentionally powerful and that is an aspect of the game I like. I think the big problem is just that corporate heroes are weak, not that administrators are too strong.



As to three, I can't say on that one, as I haven't found myself fighting up hill yet, but there is a long and glorious history of the reward for skillful play in a 4x game being an invincible fleet. I like that. If the fleet is mine, it's fun. If it's someone else's, it's either a fun challenge or a deserved loss - either way, cool.

Theodotus wrote:
This response doesn't make any sense to me.

The idea is that yes, if everyone gets it, it is balanced. However, since it would shove aside other parts of the game and ruin the pace of the game, it would simply serve to make the game less enjoyable. Balanced does not mean enjoyable or designed/implemented well.



Ultimately, what it boils down to is that the bonus on MFGs is too large; this makes getting the tech a priority and players that get it sooner will have a large tech lead on other players allowing them to slingshot through the tech tree and easily dominate the other aspects of the game as a result. Since the tech needs to be acquired early in order for a player to have a chance at winning later on (though admittedly this mostly applies when playing against humans since the AI can't metagame), most other early game strategies end up being tossed out the window as a result since they're suboptimal in comparison.

Tigga wrote:


2) Heroes are too powerful. The +25 production ability on admins is too strong for how early it is. The military heroes do too much, especially late in their development. In my current MP game I had a fleet unheroed at MP ~10k Upon adding a hero their MP rose to ~25k. This jump is too much. I think I'd cut the % change in offence/defence from 4% to 3% and see how that goes.



3) Fighting uphill in combat is too hard. Even a slight tech deficit can lead to entire fleets simply not damaging the enemy. I think this might be fixed by making heroes weaker, as purely buffing the defensive stats makes up-teched fleets pretty unkillable. If that isn't changed, then defences either need to be less reliable (can take more hits, but chance of letting hits through, or let a small amount of damage through each time) or fleet cap needs to go up a lot so that you can combat science with production.

2) Yep heroes are too strong. I think the required experience points to level up should be increased by 100 % to reduce their effect and to make hero traits more useful.



3) If heroes are nerfed it will be fine, because you can design your fleet to counter the fleet of the enemy and the AI does this, too, which is great.

I think that maintenance cost on +40SP should be much bigger. Like 10.

DarkStar wrote:
#1 and #2...is not broken if everyone is doing it, including the AI. Kinda like late game starcraft 2 where terrans kill of their SCVs and go strictly all mules for resource gathering.

In many ways, that is the very definition of overpowered. The mule example is misleading though. That is a terran racial advantage, for terrans to exploit it is simply them using that racial advantage. Now is it OP, maybe, but you would have to look at the entire race as a whole to say.



With MFGs, the question becomes, what is the impact if I don't get it quickly?



If we take a look at the initial science building (the private partnerships, I don't remember the exact name). If I don't build those early, I lose out on some science, probably about 50% in the very very early game that tapers quickly to about 20% in early to mid game. In return, I get more dust not having to pay the research costs. So its a tradeoff.



MFGs can easily increase a civilizations science by 200% in the early game, which tappers to probably about 100% in the midgame. And there hammer and dust costs are comparable to private partnerships. That sheer impact is so great, that any civ that doesn't get the tech is not just a little behind....they are left in the "dust" so to speak.

1) I agree with this : must-have and make research times too short after being built.

I add another important feeling : a flat must-have +40 for all systems is just boring, you have to do that in all your games. A no brainer.



Idea : change the way the bonus is given like +5/planet and an extra +25/gas giant in the system.



2) +1 for adding powerful choices for other heroes (and maybe a nerf at +20)



3) don't know

Theodotus wrote:
This response doesn't make any sense to me.

Exactly! Finally.

CaptainPsilon wrote:
Hmm.. Well lets remove all tech but 1 that takes 10 turns to research and gives +100 to all FIDS and max weapons. Everyone get it. Seems fun.

This response doesn't make any sense to me.

#1 and #2...is not broken if everyone is doing it, including the AI. Kinda like late game starcraft 2 where terrans kill of their SCVs and go strictly all mules for resource gathering. I really don't like the idea that my new colony will take 20years or turns just to make better farms, thus the labor hero makes sense. I don't think the AI is doing this, because they have way too many heroes when I'm mowing thru their fleets.



#3. Can't comment, maybe needs a bit of tweaking. My games tend to end early before I get to research very advance weapons.

I am not sure where I stand on the other two, but on the third, I think this is an actual feature of 4x space games. In MoO2, if you had the tech advantage you where unstoppable. In fact, tech played such a big role that most strategies focus on pumping out tech. I feel like this is fairly realistic. An army from WW1 would not survive a strait up fight with a modern army. One would have to be more careful with deployment. I feel that this carries over to ES. You can win, you just have to have some patience and not attack head on. Specialization also helps.

Personally, I haven't noticed any difficulty in fighting uphill.



When you start losing, you just stop building whatever you're building and build whatever counters your enemy most effectively (read - make a ship with fat defenses against his weapons of choice and weapons he has no defenses against). Everything dies a horrible death. Then the enemy reacts, you die a horrible death in turn and repeat the whole process.



Shipbuilding and refits are so cheap this is actually a valid strategy.

Theodotus wrote:
I don't personally see the problem with magnetic field generators. Yes, they speed up research, but if it seems too fast then one can play on slow game speed. And since everyone gets them, it's not unbalancing.

Hmm.. Well lets remove all tech but 1 that takes 10 turns to research and gives +100 to all FIDS and max weapons. Everyone get it. Seems fun.

1) Magnetic Field Generators are too good. As an early-game building they're a must-have, and make research times too short after being built. Their science needs dropping to at most 30, though I think I'd drop all the way down to 25. To make up for this Optical Research Labs could be given a +10 base science. As it stands they're the best science improvement in the game, far better than Optical Research Labs, and in a lot of cases better than Graviton-Sheilded Labs.



2) Heroes are too powerful. The +25 production ability on admins is too strong for how early it is. The military heroes do too much, especially late in their development. In my current MP game I had a fleet unheroed at MP ~10k Upon adding a hero their MP rose to ~25k. This jump is too much. I think I'd cut the % change in offence/defence from 4% to 3% and see how that goes.



3) Fighting uphill in combat is too hard. Even a slight tech deficit can lead to entire fleets simply not damaging the enemy. I think this might be fixed by making heroes weaker, as purely buffing the defensive stats makes up-teched fleets pretty unkillable. If that isn't changed, then defences either need to be less reliable (can take more hits, but chance of letting hits through, or let a small amount of damage through each time) or fleet cap needs to go up a lot so that you can combat science with production.

Tigga wrote:
1) Magnetic Field Generators are too good. As an early-game building they're a must-have, and make research times too short after being built. Their science needs dropping to at most 30, though I think I'd drop all the way down to 25. To make up for this Optical Research Labs could be given a +10 base science. As it stands they're the best science improvement in the game, far better than Optical Research Labs, and in a lot of cases better than Graviton-Sheilded Labs.



2) Heroes are too powerful. The +25 production ability on admins is too strong for how early it is. The military heroes do too much, especially late in their development. In my current MP game I had a fleet unheroed at MP ~10k Upon adding a hero their MP rose to ~25k. This jump is too much. I think I'd cut the % change in offence/defence from 4% to 3% and see how that goes.



3) Fighting uphill in combat is too hard. Even a slight tech deficit can lead to entire fleets simply not damaging the enemy. I think this might be fixed by making heroes weaker, as purely buffing the defensive stats makes up-teched fleets pretty unkillable. If that isn't changed, then defences either need to be less reliable (can take more hits, but chance of letting hits through, or let a small amount of damage through each time) or fleet cap needs to go up a lot so that you can combat science with production.

Agreed that Magnetic Field Generators is too good, and the +25 production too.

Research is completely based on researching this tech, and building 1 in every system you control (ideally with a +25 production hero that goes from system to system to make it build in 3 or so turns).



With regards to #3, I find it's less the tech impact, and more the hero impact.

Renamed the thread to become a discussion.

1) The more games I play, the more I agree this needs a tonedown. Depending on the system, I can easily generate 400% more science with this one improvement alone.