It was definatly intentional before, but now it's causing a problem. Unfortunatly this likely means a recoding of some of the core mechanics will be needed to fix this, and I doubt the dev's will change anything that big until the expansion is out.

ElMew wrote:
Stellar Guardians on Sophons.

And that has to stop, because it becomes utterly ridiculous that the Sophons can get so much science that they are still the most powerful race in the game.



To have good normal science, trading science and expansion science is beyond ridiculous.



You can have 2 but to have all three is the reason that I can never enjoy playing them, its stupid and unfun.



As a single-player guy your proposed changes are bad, they are a boring way of creating a kind of MP balance that I really don't want, nerfing the Cravers, buffing the Horatio with food per Tax.



I am 100% against your proposed changes, and do not what them to be implemented.

Sovereign wrote:
so far so good.



but why u hating the cravers so much? They are fine as they are.



and Seriously only 10 turns with Bonus on fast speed...sry but this is ridiculous with the increased cost of Colony modules u are maybe able to have 2 Outposts in 10 turns. And then u only get penalties...well i would never play cravers again.

honestly, cravers need to be nerfed. They are ridiculous.



If 20/60 is too harsh, then it can be changed again, maybe to 30/60. But something of cravers needs to change.

I am 100% against your proposed changes, and do not what them to be implemented.

really? are you 100% against all races having 65 points? if any race should have less, it certainly isn't amoeba and sowers.



are you 100% against stellar guardians being reduced? with the new expansion mechanics, its a must have



are you 100% sure that cravers aren't broken? the 25% FIDS isn't their only strength. If it was it might be ok. 21 CP craver fleets, and later their improved missile tech, along with 25% better economy and growth is a stupid combination that needs to be toned down.

Affinity wrote:
really? are you 100% against all races having 65 points? if any race should have less, it certainly isn't amoeba and sowers.

Yes, the point changes are designed to balance out the power of the affinitys.



And the Amoeba are not underpowered.

are you 100% against stellar guardians being reduced? with the new expansion mechanics, its a must have

The whole influence mechanic is rather basic and should be redesigned, rather then attempting to balance something that will inevitably end up being bi-polar of being brilliant or totally useless.

are you 100% sure that cravers aren't broken? the 25% FIDS isn't their only strength. If it was it might be ok. 21 CP craver fleets, and later their improved missile tech, along with 25% better economy and growth is a stupid combination that needs to be toned down.

Ow dear the warmonger race beat you in the one area they are DESIGNED TO EXCEL AT.



Craver economy's start with a 25% bonus, but end with a 25% penalty, and that's long before 21 cp fleets and their unique missile tech come around.

Igncom1 wrote:
Yes, the point changes are designed to balance out the power of the affinitys.



And the Amoeba are not underpowered.

Even if the new trade mechanics make amoebas playable, i doubt they'd warrant reduced trait points.

Also, look at your signature. What's the reason for sowers not having 65 points?

The whole influence mechanic is rather basic and should be redesigned, rather then attempting to balance something that will inevitably end up being bi-polar of being brilliant or totally useless.

The nerf to stellar guardians is El Mew's attempt to help the influence situation. Influence will still be a big problem, but nerfing stellar guardians is a step in the right direction

Ow dear the warmonger race beat you in the one area they are DESIGNED TO EXCEL AT.



Craver economy's start with a 25% bonus, but end with a 25% penalty, and that's long before 21 cp fleets and their unique missile tech come around.

No way, any decent craver player will have 21 CP long before all their planets are depleted. With the reduced locust improvement, most planets won't deplete until around turn 80.



Actually, getting rid of the reduced locust improvement would be a good idea to nerf cravers.

Igncom1 wrote:
...



I am 100% against your proposed changes, and do not what them to be implemented.

That is basically all you said with this long post. I was going to respond more in depth but there is no real need.





So I'm just going to say three things:

[LIST=1]

Its easy to mod single player, its hard to get 8 people to all agree to a set of balance changes when all they want to do is relax for a few hours.

If you are just going to call things stupid, rather than being constructive, stop wasting both of our time.

I fully expect to be ignored by the Devs because they are catering to the single player market, multiplayer was mostly an afterthought, and I'm not a nice person. At which point, I can say I tried and go back to watching TV when I have to be able to multitask. However, I can at least say I tried and maybe the multiplayer community will end up saying 'F it, we can agree on a mod'. I just don't expect the latter to be possible.

[/LIST]

Aureon wrote:
Tbh, i'd say the whole "Outpost under influence is not an outpost" is more of a bug than anything else.

Let them fix it and then we can talk, as of now it's a critical mess.

It was intentional on their part as they actually label the variables used that way. (e.g. UnderEmpire, UnderAlly, UnderNeutral, UnderEnnemy [yesthatwasmispelledbasedonwhatIrecallthetypowasinthexml]) and there are ones to define it being Inside/Outside of Empire for the expansionLoss calculation rather than based on outposts.



Its pretty hard to say its a 'bug' when your variables are doing what the labels on them say they are.

Then go make your mod rather then suggesting changes to the official version of the game.

Igncom1 wrote:
Then go make your mod rather then suggesting changes to the official version of the game.

ElMew wrote:
That is basically all you said with this long post. I was going to respond more in depth but there is no real need.





So I'm just going to say three things:

[LIST=1]

Its easy to mod single player, its hard to get 8 people to all agree to a set of balance changes when all they want to do is relax for a few hours.

If you are just going to call things stupid, rather than being constructive, stop wasting both of our time.

I fully expect to be ignored by the Devs because they are catering to the single player market, multiplayer was mostly an afterthought, and I'm not a nice person. At which point, I can say I tried and go back to watching TV when I have to be able to multitask. However, I can at least say I tried and maybe the multiplayer community will end up saying 'F it, we can agree on a mod'. I just don't expect the latter to be possible.

[/LIST]

Its adorable that you think I value your opinion higher than my own.

First - ElMew a comment: My experience in other games is, build what YOU want and then find people who are willing to play. They don't have to all agree to your system, because the number of people who are willing to mod is very small. Therefore, if you mod, and it is in any way better or more interesting than the standard, you will win people over.



Here are my suggestions for the affinities - however, having not yet worked on a mod I don't yet know the adaptability limits of the game. Sometimes you need to develop workarounds or give up on some lines of thought if the game mechanics will not allow for it:



UE: 2:1 Tax vs. Production - i.e. (I think) 0-100% Tax = 0-50% Bonus, so 40% Tax = 20% Production Bonus. Eliminate the +10 Exp for ships

Sophons: Eliminate the 50% cost reduction for support modules

Hissho: Reduce the time for Bushido to 20 Turns (45 is like damn near half a game) and the rate to 10% (stacked to 40%) but make it FIDS (include science). Also add on the +10 Exp for ships (warrior race)

Amoeba: Increase points to 65

Automatons: Increase base industry stacking to 10%

Cravers: +20%/0/-20% FIDS instead of 25% (not certain it is enough, but for now it may be and I would keep time the same)

Horatio: I like ElMew's idea of 0-50% Food Bonus (cloning) for tax rates of 50% to 0% in addition to the hero clone. However I plan to nerf heroes and eliminate most of the hero traits. I want to have a trait though that changes academy size by either +1 or -1 instead (not sure if it is possible but it should be since it is a tech) - Maybe +/-2 is even possible.

Sowers: Huge change here. I will completely eliminate any food change - they get same as everyone else. Reasoning? Well not sure why that is also true of Automatons if they are machines too, but in this case the Sowers are all about creating new life, so more food = more life = more sowers. Also, they will get NO MALUS for any Planets (Lava or Asteroids are the exact same to them as Terran) and not affected by things like Toxic and other negative anomolies (not sure if I can pick and choose or even do this, but that is the idea). i.e. machines built to terraform don't care about living issues for their approval rating, but of course since it lowers FOOD it means they want to terraform! Also, increase to 65 points (all races will be the same)

Pilgrims: Nomadic. Keep their current evacuation (I actually am not sure how it works I never use them) but add 2 additional benefits (is this possible? I don't know)

1 - Immigration - any time a system is conquered, that system loses 1 pop and 1 pop is added to a Pilgrim affinity in the game (if there is one) as people flee to them as safety. If this doesn't work, maybe some other mechanism may work. The idea is that they take refugees and those fleeing from oppression. If a planet is on strike would be another great one too, which usually happens after there is a war as well.

2 - Adaption - They started by living in systems they could hide in, so they get +1 Pop for all of the lowest ranking systems (Asteroids, Gas Giants, Lava, and Barren planets)

Vyp, I'm not interested in marketing. Its time consuming. In practice, build things and expect others to just recognize the superior options rarely happens. Most of the time, they just languish in obscurity.



I've already done the Amoeba one. The 60% thing is fine for UE, really. I'm leaving Hissho alone for now. Automatons I'm leaving alone since I've seen some pretty effective rushers with them already (even if they ultimately lose to cravers). Cravers with 20% is still way too strong. Horatio is already done. I don't agree with the Sowers thing because that would make them SuperTolerant which would be too strong as it negates a bunch of techs in the bottom tree. Pilgrims, I'm not sure that is possible with the limited XML 'mods' we can do.

Have some ideas for Sheredyn too - would make them independent of the UE as far as the story goes. I would call their affinity Empire - adds +1 approval per OP and +5 per colony in the empire - so this means they want a BIG empire. I don't think we can scale to galaxy size, but that would be good for some traits I think. The numbers have to be tweaked based on what the game does to expansion malus. I am actually thinking to use the base game, not the new mod. I see little value in the new mod as it stands. I think tweaking from the existing base is better.



I think that if you make a mod you can get people but who knows?



I would still say trying a buff of 5% could not hurt on Automatons and for sowers, well so what? Other races use techs to terraform and the Sowers already can do that. Alternately - maybe give them as an ability the ability to TERRAFORM right from the start. This may not be OP since it costs a lot and may not be possible to do well at the start of the game. Then the logic is the disapproval stays because their goal is to terraform. Maybe leave the food/industry as is? Either way they need fixing and testing. I am sure the +Pop would work on pilgrims, but maybe not for the other idea. If not, then I might link it to events that reduce pop. In fact, we can re-do events so deadly ones are gone, and add some that do this for the Pilgrims. That WILL work from what I understand looking at the mod document. i.e. an event causes -pop to all factions but +pop for pilgrims (may have to math it - like -1 all players +5 for pilgrims (-1+5 = 4) or something like that.

Funny that people want to nerf races back to a status were they actually were UP that they got a buff in the very past (obviously in the time before u joined the community)



iam for progression (making Sheredyn unique, iam on board for example, or buffing other races out, making sowers more Lore true)





but sry iam not a friend of regression.



Save the Sowers

not

Destroy anyone else.



i dont can support any nerfs and maybe even the sophons are now okay(they got their little nerf now) u see even with that iam not 100% sure cause

further more everything haz changed in terms of balance with the new mechanics (and even they are probably going to change them very soon in a mod update next weak)

Darn, this is like the WOTC ideas for early MTG cards; feeling like the harmless act of creating it in a certain way resulting in insanely broken cards for either their cost and effect. No wonder I was doing well and then doing bad in my games of ES right now... the AI has influence everywhere whereas I got the really awesome long string lanes.

Craver slight nerf may be justified: Their +25% applies to the new, improved colony base F/I bonuses, which is very relevant.

Arid also isn't as crappy as it used to be (Now identical to terran, with -1 pop, +2 dust and -2 food, plus another -1 food due to not benefitting as greatly as a t1 from Alien Grafting, which could be recovered with Sustainable Farms though)

This means that their planet start, which still lacks food (6 to everyone else's 11) has more industry than anyone but Hissho, more science than anyone but Amoeba, and a stunning +8 dust over Terran planets.



(Gas planets are going to be a fun ride, if only their new terraform cost wasn't 2860.. sigh)

Tolerant may just have become a decent trait, especially for Sowers. Find a gas methane, be happy forever.

Also, for Sowers, a Lava planet is a 4/12/1/0.. nothing to sneeze at. Barren just needs a terraform to Lava, and same for Desert/Arctic.

I would've appreciated Sowers getting a fifth unique tech, though. Possibly as Atomic Substrates being granted earlier access than it's heart-shattering 4000-tier.

Sovereign wrote:
i don't can support any nerfs and maybe even the sophons are now okay (they got their little nerf now) you see even with that i am not 100% sure

Consider that Cravers got an indirect buff. A very slight nerf may be appropriate.

Personally, i'd make the home system start at 40 LP already and call it a day.

Aureon wrote:
Craver slight nerf may be justified: Their +25% applies to the new, improved colony base F/I bonuses, which is very relevant.

Arid also isn't as crappy as it used to be (Now identical to terran, with -1 pop, +2 dust and -2 food, plus another -1 food due to not benefitting as greatly as a t1 from Alien Grafting, which could be recovered with Sustainable Farms though)



I would've appreciated Sowers getting a fifth unique tech, though. Possibly as Atomic Substrates being granted earlier access than it's heart-shattering 4000-tier.

Nope it does not apply to the colony base.

The Craver 25% Bonus is directly applied to the planetary quality so the new Colonial Base doenst affect it at all.





This isent a bonus multiplier which is applied such as late as the sophons one for example the Craver Bonus has never bee granted any bonus in combination with he Bayoranic +40 Science Building. NEVER



Cravers are expanders and expanders suffers the most from this insane machanics they suffering indrect the most.



Arids are now the badest Planet Type of all cause Dust isent that important.

And the cravers bonus is exactly the same as pre mod.



test it for yourself if u didnt believe me.





the thing with early Atom Subtrates was one thing i criticized a long time ago yes it should be way earlier for sowers would solve many things.

Well barren planets are useful for low tax or large fleets.

Two more opinions:



Sowers - The more the affinity is watered down (lower penalty, lower bonus), the more necessary it is to build food improvements which is something they usually skip. Also means ind planets are less valuable to colonize early (methane, lava, tundra) but they will perform considerably better on T1 planets. Though keep in mind that their race techs are for tundras.



Automaton - I agree their early game is solid. I would still like to see some lategame love to compensate on the inability for anyone to make good use of their affinity with 10+ systems. My suggestion is to add something to their mid-lategame techs (the satellites, stacking% and the terran tech). This gives em the prop they could use mid-late but leaves their early game exactly the same. The value I had propsed to add was a deeper stack (so if you miss a turn on management its not fully lost).



Edit: Using affinity specific techs to balance early-mid-lategame viability for affinities would probably help a lot. Theres only so much you can do with the affinity passive for balance and since they are tied to the affinity and not the traits its part of affinity balance.



I wanted to come to the playtest today but seems I wont have time before a previously arranged commitment D:

Scrangos wrote:


Automaton - I agree their early game is solid. I would still like to see some lategame love to compensate on the inability for anyone to make good use of their affinity with 10+ systems. My suggestion is to add something to their mid-lategame techs (the satellites, stacking% and the terran tech). This gives em the prop they could use mid-late but leaves their early game exactly the same. The value I had propsed to add was a deeper stack (so if you miss a turn on management its not fully lost).

I am 100% in support of adding something to the Automaton Affinity that kicks in in the mid game so they don't start to fall apart. After enough systems are colonized, industry stacking is hard to use to its full potential. I also like your idea of adding faction-specific techs to their tech tree. In fact, more Sowers specific terraforming techs should be added. Like something that reduces the industry cost to terrafrom in the system.

Looks like it will be tomorrow, only 1-2 ppl have time today.