Edited - original comments not quite right for this thread.



It would be nice to have a series of pictures we can use besides the stock ones - and some more possible ship arts.



I also would love to see editable affinities, so we can create our own racial affinities. Maybe this can be combined with traits so that affinities affect the points for traits.



One useful affinity could be more for the machines - seems to me they have no need or very minimal for food. Instead they can say double the industry value on a world but use 50% of it for food, maybe only 40% instead. Their ability to colonize should then be re-worked. This may involve more of an adjustment. You could make planets work differently instead for each race:



1 - Terran Race (like it is now)

2 - Silica or Machine race (prefer to colonize barren/asteroids and such) - don't need food

3 - Biomech race - need food and industry equally

4 - Aquatic Race (they live in water) - some advantages but have the hardest time with terraforming

5 - Gas race - Gas Giants are preferred

Closing this discussion.



With the new faction, we still have plenty of work to do on balancing. Note that the excel doc in the OP will still be up in case you want to bring your input.

Change Legendary Heroes such that it grants the Legendary Hero status of +XP (and the other bonuses) to a hero after 15 turns of hiring.

Waylander1982 wrote:
Anomalies:



Unlucky Colonists (-10 to -3) - Basic logic argument, any "debuff" that can be removed or mitigated to the point of being inconsequential should not comparatively allow you to get more "buffs" based on that. It would be like Fragile Hulls just ceasing to be a thing after you researched the Siderite technology (random choice). With High Gravity removed, which was the only real kick in the pants, it becomes a minor inconvenience early game.



Furthermore after the, as far as I could tell, completely undocumented change that increased the positive effects of many reductions, or gave certain reductions positive effects (Hostile Fauna giving +1 when reduced for instance), much of what gave Unlucky Colonists its bite prior to this just isn't a factor anymore. Even with High Gravity still in the mix the current -10 is far too generous and without it there is some argument for it actually costing trait points instead of giving you more.

No, unlucky colonists can be crippling to an empire early game, possibly leading to a position where it is impossible to catch up. Let's look at how these anomalies could cripple you:



Hostile Fauna -10 approval

This one you got lucky, and can be completely countered by optimistic

Swamp World, -10approval: +1 -1

even with slightly faster reproduction, you will have less than 10 production for a long time unless you started on jungle with +4

Seismic Activity,-10 -1 +1

this one isn't too bad, especially if you have optimistic. But if you don't, you will have a hard time balancing the checkbook.

LONG SEASON -1 -1

you start the game with almost 0 food. even -1 food if you start on arid or tundra. -1 means it will be that much harder to get out your hero.

Meteor Strikes -10approval: +1industry: -1science:

unless you started on ocean or tundra, you will start the game with 5 or less science. That can really ruin your day if you didn't plan for it.

High gravity -20approval: -1 industry:

pretty obviously the worst, need low taxes to keep them happy, and you still won't be able to build anything for a long time unless you started on jungle.



all that said, having legendary heroes + optimistic can negate all these troubles. That is certainly a very strong combination of traits, since it essentially makes legendary heroes cost only 14 points.



But taken as an individual trait, I think -10 is just about right.



as for the argument that you can just remove the negative effects, yes you can, but that is high enough in the tech tree that by the time you get to it, you might be hopelessly behind, not to mention by that point the effect has a minimal effect on your empire anyway.



EDIT: after seeing a friend use unlucky colonists (and he insisted on a young galaxy) perhaps it is need of some attention. In a young galaxy, where it is easy to find another tier 1 planet, unlucky is less important. In a normal or older galaxy (which i prefer playing on) it is much worse to have unlucky since development is much harder.

Generally rebalanced on cost comparisons with other traits, one key point is that it seems that in the case of traits you get increased effect for higher versions of the same positive trait, so higher levels should have higher values.



Famous (+8pts); -50% Hiring Cost, -5 Turns Hero Appearence, +1 Academy Size*

Infamous (-8pts); +50% Hiring Cost, +5 Turns Hero Appearence, -1 Academy Size*



Diplomatic (4/10pts); +10/+20 bonus for diplomacy/trades, +1/+2 bonus on relations per turn to a maximum of +25/+50 if at peace or better**

Undiplomatic(-4/-8pts); -10/-20 penalty for diplomacy/trades, -1/-2 penalty on relations per turn to a maximum of -25/-50 if not allied**



Cooperative (4pts); +5% Trade Routes Bonuses per Cooperation Treaty on System, +5% Repair in Cooperative system.***

Uncooperative (-12pts); -5% Trade Routes Penalty per faction without a Cooperation Treaty on System, -5% Repair in Oustide of own system.



Friendly (20pts); On contact is at peace with new factions, after ceasefire goes to peace automatically. Excepting with Unfriendly factions which limits options.

Unfriendly (-15pts); On contact is at war with new factions, may never be at peace, may not use diplomacy except for ceasefire or declare war.



Opportunistic Traders (20pts); External (with other factions) Trade Routes at 33% efficiency during war, 67% efficiency during cold war. Internal (within your faction) Trade Routes at -50% all the time.****









*There should also be an additional technology that increases academy size by +1.

**Diplomats should be called Traders.

***Symbios should be called cooperative.

****Blockade Breakers should be called Opportunistic Traders





Random notes;



I'd much rather tolerant also gave an empire disapproval reduction of 10/20 pts, and the FIDS penalty was -40/-20, and keep the original costs of 20/40

Assorted thoughts(i've written this post like 8 times, but keep forgetting to actually submit it...so here's hoping I don't this time)-



Point limit- these need to be different as of right now. Pilgrims and horatio are no where near as good as cravers and sophon right now. So unless there's some major changes to the affinities themselves, we need to change how many points these allow to bring some balance.



Tech- I'm having a really hard time even putting points on these, simply because i can't even imagine when i'd want to waste the points. Especially when there's empire wide bonuses for a similar price.



Offense first- I feel like this should give less(maybe -2/-4/-6) simply because it's easy to plan/build around.



Blockade breakers- I think it should be made into two tiers. One for cold war trading and one for actual war trading. That way you could technically still do eternal war+blockade breakers, but it needs to cost more. Or maybe just make it an exclusive choice.



Optimistic/pessimistic- I really really wish we could just remove optimistic. If feels like a must have even at high costs. That said I almost feel like pessimistic should give more.



Eternal war- Agree that it should give less, but really the biggest issue is the combo with blockade breakers.



Death before dishonor- I don't like the idea of making this cheaper. It's a pretty awesome advantage and is decently easy to plan around.



Slow traveler- 2 at least should give more. It's such a major early game disadvantage. It's true that by late game it's less of an issue, but the major expansion period is early game, and this certainly hinders it.



Tolerant- I feel it honestly needs a remake. Colonization techs are cheap, easy, and in a VERY important tech tree that you cannot ignore. By the time tolerant might make sense, you probably could've already gotten the tech to get the planet you wanted. You won't be colonizing tier 3/4's anyways early game, and if you're using it for tier 2's you just spent 10/20 points for being able to delay an extremely cheap tech. It needs to do something about the approval hit, or maybe if we have another trait/race/affinity that doesn't lose approval for colonizing tier 3/4's it would make some sense, but right now, it's always a waste.

Yeah the traits DO all cost a fixed value for each race, the only thing some people are not ok with is that some affinities give more points to spend than others.

Without attempting to estimate how much this or that particular trait should cost, I'd like to state that every trait should cost a fixed value. If, for example, some trait is given a cost of -11, it should always be -11, no matter what game speed or difficulty are, or what affinity is chosen. Though changing the numbers on the fly may sound good for easier balancing process, having fixed values are better for memorizing, comparing, sorting and sharing over the game community.



I support the idea to increase the cost of the initial step and decreasing subsequent steps of traits. Races should tend to become specialized in some way instead of taking this, that and even that, just because heterogeneous traits are cheaper and more profitable overall as a bunch. Or else all races will look more similar.



From backstory point of view, I'd like some little naming and overall clean up in Unlucky Colonists and Terraformed {lanet traits. The name Colonists is not related in any way to gameplay colonization itself and can mislead, the creatures already live on a Homeworld, so they are just Unlucky. Thinking about anticipations perceived from reading a name "Terraformed Planet": half of the possible anomaly effects given by this trait, like Antonov Rings or Low Gravity, does not look like a result of terraformation effect performed on a homeworld. But some other anomalies, like Psychoactive Air or Hollow Planet, does. But that's just naming.

Economy traits:

I would argue that entrepreneur is actually not nearly as powerful as it sounds. Enterpreneur early game can indeed give out around a 40% bonus to dust, but mid game onwards it gives out barely as much of an increase as Businessmen 1. For that reason making it cost more than cloaning 2 seems kinda stupid to me. On the other hand I feel that since each level of business man translates mid-game to a level of Entrepreneur each it should be slightly increased so that Businessmen 2 is equal to entreperneur (as I consider them to about the same strength overall).

Dust archeology 1 allows you to buy a hero at turn 1, which, along with Legendary heroes, is a massive difference. For that reason I feel it should cost more than 1 point, but Dust acheology 2 doesn't translate into 2 heroes, so it should cost less than archeology 1.

Merchants should have a slight cost reduction IMO since right now it causes trades to move to the newest planet colonised, completly destroying powerful trade networks you may have built up. If that gets fixed along with this balance patch, then the current cost is fine.



Hero traits:

Death before dishonour has always seemed over-priced to me since retreating is such a powerful tool. For that reason I feel a slight cost reduction is in order.

Dust impared has nearly always been a no-brainer for people who want more points. It makes almost no difference mid to late game, and since heroes have the dust wielder ability it seems almost redundant.

Heroic medicine on the other hand is rarely used, but is quite a powerful one. Still, perhaps it's time it became cheaper so it could be used more. Same deal with powermasters.



Fleet traits:

Fast travellers arn't that big of a deal when early tech increases movement by 6 anyway, so for that reason I don't feel it's quite as impactful as it otherwise would be, and the cost change reflects that.

Also, why the hell hasn't meticulous analysis been reduced yet? Seriously, scouting ATM is the most useless thing you could get since systems do most of it for you, and you can only see what planets a system has on it if you go into the system with a scout. If you made it so that scouts could see what a system has without sending it into the system, then perhaps the cost would be fine as it is, otherwise it needs a reduction.



Science traits:

Space cadets has always seemed much more punishing to me than the cost reflects. Tolerant 1 also feels like it doesn't do much for an empire, so i adjusted the cost on both of them.



And finally anomalies:

I feel that the standard cost of things shoudl be 5, don't ask me why, I just do. Hellgourds i put cost at 0, because when I get it I really don't cosider the anomoly to be a negative one.

Unlike Waylander I also feel that Unlucky colonist is a big impacter early game, to the point where it may even cripple an empire, but it definatly shouldn't be a cost of 10.

Anomalies:



The numbers I've posted probably look odd, allow me to explain them.



Terraformed Planet (4 to 8) - I'd have gone even higher but considering the balancing the 8 works best. Terraformed Planet, much like Unlucky Colonists, is supposed to be a gamble but as it stands its current cost makes it more like a sure thing. Yes it may not be as definite as Dust Lode for people going Sophons who want to rush Science early, nor is it as useful as Mineral Rich for any Affinity without a Jungle starting planet who wants to spam colony ships ASAP, but it is potentially better than either of those and for a not insignificantly lower cost. Making it cost equivalent, but potentially less useful if you roll (for instance) Metallic Waters or Antonov Rings, thus actually making it a gamble for something like Friendly Locals or Low Gravity.



Unlucky Colonists (-10 to -3) - Basic logic argument, any "debuff" that can be removed or mitigated to the point of being inconsequential should not comparatively allow you to get more "buffs" based on that. It would be like Fragile Hulls just ceasing to be a thing after you researched the Siderite technology (random choice). With High Gravity removed, which was the only real kick in the pants, it becomes a minor inconvenience early game.



Furthermore after the, as far as I could tell, completely undocumented change that increased the positive effects of many reductions, or gave certain reductions positive effects (Hostile Fauna giving +1 when reduced for instance), much of what gave Unlucky Colonists its bite prior to this just isn't a factor anymore. Even with High Gravity still in the mix the current -10 is far too generous and without it there is some argument for it actually costing trait points instead of giving you more.



As a side note, are you guys sure that Long Season is being properly represented in the game? Even the reduction text seems to suggest that it should give some positive effect post or pre reduction.



Hellgourds (-5 to -3) - As above with regards to effects that can be mitigated entirely, the approval debuff is significant but it isn't something that you can't overcome.



Mineral Poor/Poor Soil (-8 to -4) - As above. Both of these are pretty significant but I've seen Craver players just power through the debuff and, on occasion, a Pilgrim utilise Fleet Errant to great effect.



Dust Lode/Mineral Rich/Rich Soil (8 to 8) - I used these traits to "balance" the others around.



Huygens Rings (5 to 6) - A minor increase. Having seen plenty of people using this, and Metallic Waters, to decent effect I'd argue that bring both of them closer in line, cost wise, with Dust Lode etc. would increase their situational validity while forcing people to actually make a choice that reflects their gameplay/strategy more.



Metallic Waters (4 to 6) - As above.

Hey dear fellows!



With the 3rd add on we released a new version of the cost for the faction traits used by the custom factions. Some people continued to give feedback about this new balancing, so we want to try to work in collaboration with you.





Here is the idea:



You can find a google document here with the current cost for each faction traits.



Anybody can edit the files so I count on your fairness: do not edit other people's work. =)



The idea is to collect your proposals in a document, so I can easily analyze it and work with concrete data. So please, create your own column with what you think is the best cost for each traits. There is one sheet per family traits so be careful! =) And do not forget to look at all of them. ^^



You do not have to give your online name but doing it will make the discussion easier in the thread!





Thanks for your participation!

A mix of the two would probably be a better approach, but that would need constant revision and monitoring. A small patch a week at the very least, and this presupposes that any larger issues in terms of playability (desyncing) or other balance problems (new features) are dealt with at the same pace.



Regardless neither would really work without establishing a baseline comparison, which is something that I don't think the current game gives you. By making everything as equal as possible within the sphere of influence a player can affect the deeper issues with regards to balancing can be more easily determined.



EDIT: I'm not trying to suggest that everything should be absolutely equal, each affinity should feel like its own unique experience and have playstyles that it works/doesn't work with. I'm suggesting that we find out where the differences lie, and what affect those differences have, before we try to start balancing everything.

You know, I think we both agree we want the game to be balanced, and I even think we agree on where balancing issues lie, we are just approaching the problem from different angles. I am starting from a standpoint of assuming that the actual affinities, hero abilities, and traits that are in the game currently are going to remain approximately the same for the moment, and so my approach was an attempt to balance only with adjustments in numbers. You favor alteration of the actual affects of the abilities, affinities, or traits themselves. Both of these approaches seem reasonable to me. In reality, perhaps, a bit of both would make sense... I actually think this has been an interesting discussion so far.

In regards to MP the game has not been thoroughly playtested, heroes for instance are another entirely unbalanced aspect of the game. Nothing should be done to favour one affinity over another right now, regardless of how powerful or otherwise they've been known to be by regular players, instead any decisions (particularly to the amount of traits available to a given affinity as opposed to specific trait costs) should be deferred until there has been an established and measured understanding of how these traits interplay.



I'd argue that rather than give certain affinities more points to balance them that the game would be better served by an overhaul that balanced out the affinities (in conjunction with changes to affinity specific tech).

Hmm, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that we can better see how much more powerful the affinities are compared to each other by evening out the points. I agree that is probably true, and I would probably agree with your plan were the game still in beta. But the problem with running a test like that at this point is that the game is already released (as has been for some time), and as I think your plan would be likely to make the game less balanced until those thousands of test games were played. Moreover, thousands of test games already have been run with the current affinity point configuration, so for the moment we should just attempt to balance it with the information we do have. Finally, while I agree the opinions/experiences of a few are not the best way to balance a game, I think that, short of running an enormous number of test games with AI (who would not properly use the affinities/traits anyway), this may be the best system we have.

Which is almost exactly my point KJ, things are just as likely to fall one way as they are the other. In my experience the Sophon affinity trumps the rest, but then that might be coloured by the size of the map, whether pirates are enabled, which victories are enabled etc. etc.



They should be made equal in terms of trait points, then if the MP is fixed and some actually decent rigorous playing can be done, they can be patched based on the outcomes of thousands of games. Instead of the opinions/experiences of a few.

Waylander1982 wrote:
Faction Point Limit



Make it homogeneous at 60, as opposed to a staggered 60/65 based on an apparent view of that faction affinities relative strength (Sowers only got 60, whereas Sophons got 65. Sophons are easily the best faction for rushers, and the most common statistical winner of any given game, people who play Sowers have been fodder since launch). Ideally no one faction should be sufficiently overpowered or underpowered to require a boost/nerf to their point limit, this is unlikely to be the case but with a flat point limit platform people might at least be more willing to experiment.

Since I think it is most peoples opinion that the affinities are not balanced, it would make more sense to try to balance them rather than flatten them. For example, give the Pilgrims more points to spend to make up for their inferior affinity, and affinities like the Cravers or Ameoba fewer points than the others to make up for their more powerful affinities.



Also, I find it interesting that you state that the Sophons are statistically the most likely to win, as that has not been my multiplayer experience. If you have some statistics on that I would be very interested in seeing them. In the majority of games I have seen, the Cravers affinity has tended to win somewhat more often than other affinities.



At this time, I happen to think the recent run of balancing changes were pretty good, with the possible exception of the affinities, so my only changes would be to the cost of the affinities and to the cost of the "eternal war" trait because in competitive multiplayer it seems to be a necessity.



Because the eternal war trait has very little if any detrimental affect on the early game, the points gained by taking this trait can be spent on other traits balloon into major advantages in the later game. In this way, and especially on larger maps or in games with fewer players, taking this trait is a necessity. If someone takes a trait because they must do so in order to compete, rather than as a strategic choice, it should probably be rebalanced. Ideally, this trait would cost differing amounts based on map size and number of players, however, since I would assume that is untenable at the moment, I would reduce the points gained.



As to the other traits, I think I would need more games with the current set of changes to be able to accurately balance all of the traits together, but let me say that overall I think the last balance pass was certainly a step in the right direction.

Faction Point Limit



Make it homogeneous at 60, as opposed to a staggered 60/65 based on an apparent view of that faction affinities relative strength (Sowers only got 60, whereas Sophons got 65. Sophons are easily the best faction for rushers, and the most common statistical winner of any given game, people who play Sowers have been fodder since launch). Ideally no one faction should be sufficiently overpowered or underpowered to require a boost/nerf to their point limit, this is unlikely to be the case but with a flat point limit platform people might at least be more willing to experiment.



Technology Traits



As depicted, increase the cost of the initial trait and subsequently decrease (significantly) any branches from that. By in large people picking these traits tend to just choose two of the early ones, due to their inherent usefulness as opposed to most (if not all) of the second tier technologies available to you, this should hopefully encourage people to commit more to their choices (Taking N-Way/Core Mining instead of N-Way/Isolation Shields/Xenology).

Making a series of values under the "Waynoober!" name, no doubt they'll all look crazy.